BUIP097: New Members for Election #10


Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
Submitted: 21 August 2018
Voting date: 27 August 2018


This BUIP lists the new membership applications for Bitcoin Unlimited which have been received since the previous membership BUIP voting day. New members are not able to vote on the current BUIPs, but will be able to in subsequent votes, provided that their entry in this BUIP is passed.

1. @imaginary_username
Twitter: @im_uname (see signature on profile)
Reddit: /u/imaginary_username, can DM a member if needed to prove identity.
BCF discord: @im_uname #4406, can message a member if needed.
Yours.org: https://www.yours.org/@im_uname
memo: qrg7zy366dtu57xqj4fy9juvtqv2znrdm5huc6uzzw
BCH/BTC public key: 1KNvUAmquf9v2BgyrTsLjE8GdKwu1PaJed

2. @Shaun Chong
BCH/BTC public key: 1BZTJSoLVgwwKrKpV6DGyDQeUUGw5wthuu

3. @OpenMind
BCH/BTC public key: 1FagGBX4657vQ9w2f8fCLXyDdLNWQ71a9T

Prospective members are asked to provide a public key which they will use for voting. Bitcoin Unlimited is a participatory organization where we do ask that people devote a small amount of time, every couple of months to guide the direction of the software and org itself.

More links to external posting history (e.g. Twitter, Medium, Facebook, Reddit) are welcome, and I'll add them here. In the current adversarial climate the links prove helpful to existing members to make their evaluation.

edit: 24 Oct, added #3 as this application was received before the cutoff, and has now been seconded.

BUIP097 imaginary_username Shaun Chong OpenMind
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
Welcome @imaginary_username and @Shaun Chong. I would much appreciate you additional input before I cast my vote.
I'd like to reiterate that BU is just one of many bitcoin implementations and membership vote is how we govern changes in this implementation. Members contribute on a voluntary basis and membership requires active participation to direct this project. (Non-members can participate in voting issues. I would encourage it as it builds rapport with voting members.)

BU is differentiated from other bitcoin implementations by this governed method giving an opportunity to all professions and economic classes to participate in the development process of bitcoin, and as such active participation and diversity is needed.

The adoption of BU within the bitcoin network is voluntary and as such members only indirectly impact the direction of the bitcoin protocol leaving the network participants free to choose the software that runs the Bitcoin protocol.

It is a priority for me to grow an active and diverse membership that is robust enough to prevent the type of governing issues we've seen with the past, specifically the concept of a single reference client run by a hegemony of incumbent developers.

I don't have any good formula for improving the screening process for new members, and I'd hate to see membership deteriorate. I'd like BU governance to evolve into the best form of governance there is, so we are going to need a competent and membership capable of critical thinking.

Before I cast a vote for new members please meet me halfway and help me understand who you are by confirming the following:
  1. An online identity that can be validated that represents your participation in the cryptocurrency space (if you haven't already done so.)
  2. You've read and comprehend the Bitcoin Unlimited: Articles of Federation
  3. Can give some critical feedback on:
    a. one principal in the Articles you mostly agree with and why?
    b. one principle you think can be improved in the Articles and why?
  4. An appropriate screening question to ask new applicants to prevent introducing bad apples to the membership?
  5. The date you first started participating in some aspect of cryptocurrency discussion.
;) I think other members could also be interested in your responses.

P.s. You don't need to be a member to participate in development, everyone is welcome in the process. I'd encourage you all to ask questions, comment, discuss address advantages or disadvantages in the current BUIP's. Your participation and ideas are welcome.

Thanks in advance.



Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
@OpenMind and @mkomaransky Before I cast a vote for new members please meet me halfway and help me understand who you are. Have a read of the post above, I'd like your input before I decide how to cast my vote.


New Member
Aug 22, 2018
Miami, FL
@AdrianX, my Twitter account mkomaransky contains my thoughts on crypto. You might see my transformation into an Unlimited frame of mind starting in early 2017. That's when I read the Rizun paper on a fee market, and I shed my small block ideals. My reddit account is mainly palindromes (I am a mod of /r/palindromes) but there may be some crypto-related material from 2014-2017. Before that my bitcointalk.org username was mpkomara from June 2010-2012.

I've read the Articles of Federation. By opening with "we are at a crossroads" I think the document sets an overly dramatic tone. Are we at a crossroads? Will we always be at a crossroads? How will we determine when we are no longer at a crossroads? The paper serves an important function whether we are at a crossroads or not. I feel similarly to 1.IV "Adoption is paramount". Suppose the entire world used a bitcoin with unlimited blocksize, and adoption could not improve. Then what? I think currently adoption is nice, but it is not the ultimate goal. If I had to propose an alternative (must I?) I would say creating a good form of money is paramount. Then, even in the world with 100% usage, you'd strive to make a good form of money.

The most elegant thing in the Articles of Federation is the phrase "A block cannot be invalid because of its size." That's why I'm here, that's why I want membership.

Important to my path was what made me switch from small blocks to big blocks. I remind you that I wrongly assumed that an arbitrary blocksize [limit] was necessary to stimulate fees that would otherwise not be paid. This was the result of me hanging around in Core chats and censored reddits, etc. It took a scientific approach and Rizun's paper to show me I was wrong. Not everyone has their "Escape from Core story", I understand, but those who do should be willing to share it. It might help hearing these stories to find ways to reach the ears of people stuck in echo chambers, like I was.
Last edited:


Mar 10, 2018
Same here, @Norway. But worse than that:

I had criticised Imaginary Username's (im_uname)'s toxic behaviour on Twitter, to the BCH fund, because
another member of the community had found his disturbing statements inside the Bitcoin Cash Fund chat. I was initially shocked by what that member told me, almost incredulous to how it could be true. So I looked it up myself in the BCF chatroom and there it was:

Imaginary Username made messages and statements about needing to "get a good number of people who (sic) kill themselves" to turn the bear market around and to inflict violence upon biological Satoshi if he ever found Satoshi. (Photo evidence below).

It stands unacceptable to me to accept someone into the active BU community who "jokes" about extreme violence, including "getting" or encouraging people to "kill themselves", and saying they would inflict violence on Satoshi if he found Satoshi. (I find both these statements super disturbing).

I ponder if this person is even sane or right-minded to make these kinds of violent statements...

I would urge members to set high standards for BU community. It is not ok to threaten violence. These behaviors do not show good judgment and mental state. They look like a warning sign to me.

Ask with your own moral fiber whether jokes of extreme violence are ok to you when you vote on this potential member. Or if threats to a living Satoshi would be ok to you.

For me, it's a definite no and a reject.

Photographic evidence:

BCF and Paul Wasensteiner did not respond to the concerns from their community members about this. I hope in BU, we give a little more thought on who we accept in our community.

I ask also Bitcoin Cash Fund members (if they happen to be here, like @Tom Zander) how this is acceptable within BCF community, and how he was able to remain in a position as moderator of BCF chat.

How can one act as a moderator if they themselves are being toxic.

How do we grow as a community for global Bitcoin when the community itself would turn a blind eye on things like this?

I'm going to vote "no" for @imaginary_username It's an anonymous person who seem to have an agenda of division. Here's his latest reddit post:



Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
@reina , there's only one "member" who's "concerned" about this. And you know it. I personally blocked the guy for so long I almost forgot he exists.

Also, I'm not even a moderator anymore. Please don't lie.

@Norway it's an obvious stab at humoring the "return protocol and lock it down" crowd. If you don't get it I can't help you.


Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
@AdrianX Sorry, I did not see your post. Despite our heated debate on Twitter I'll try to answer these.

1. Please see @solex 's post, there are multiple venues. I'm not very active at checking memo so it might take longer for me to respond there.

2. Yes.

3. a. Article 1. V. for its accurate description that there's nothing that stops network participants from running and tweaking parameters as they like it. With a note that there's also nothing wrong with also giving users a reasonable default, which they can violate/change easily if they want to. This is particularly relevant considering the recent debates.

3. b. Considering that we are mostly interested in a minority chain (BCH) now, the "longest proof of work" part of Article 1. II might need more nuance. I'm not sure exactly what it should read at this moment, though.

4. It might be difficult to come up with such a question, as questions that are obviously loaded would probably end up being gamed by a malicious applicant, while blocking applicants legitimately willing to contribute due to minor opinion differences. The best mechanism might not be a question, but reasonable deliberation - online or offline - among existing members who have interacted with the applicant before.

5. Late 2013/Early 2014 when I started following /r/bitcoin. I then registered on Reddit and there's no going back.


Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
I prefer if members are not anonumous but sometimes make expections if their historical activity is aligned with my views.

I will reject your application because you are anonumous and in addition can't show old activity.