BUIP117: Support both BCH and BSV

[Christoph Bergmann]

A very straightforward addition to the BUIPs 113-115: BU shall support both BCH and BSV and remain its independence. If more than 50% of voters agree, it must be set.

BUIP113-115 might still count. But as a 50% they are flawed. For example, you have nine members: 4 vote only for keeping BCH, 4 only for keeping BSV, but one reasonable BCH-supporter wants to support both and adds a vote for BSV. Result: Only BSV is supported. A sane voting shouldn't allow this kind of result in which you hurt your own interest by being reasonable and integrative. The setup incetivizes non-integrative voting behaviour, which goes straight against the basic foundation of BU.

Therefore positive results for BUIP113-115 should count when achieving 25%. If 75% of members agree to kick a coin - I suspect this to happen with BTC - so it be.

 

[freetrader]

What if BCH + BSV are voted to be discontinued by 113+114, but voted to be accepted by this one?
Then we have a contradiction in the BUIPs and voting outcome. Such a contradiction should never be allowed to occur.

The setup incetivizes non-integrative voting behaviour, which goes straight against the basic foundation of BU.

I don't agree with this characterization of 113...115. I think they perfectly allow integrative voting, and now also have a safe fallback to the status quo.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Than the outcome of BUIP113+114 does not represent memberhip intentions, and we can be happy to stick with the status quo via BUIP117. This is exactly the idea of it.
[doublepost=1553703830][/doublepost]

What if BCH + BSV are voted to be discontinued by 113+114, but voted to be accepted by this one?
Then we have a contradiction in the BUIPs and voting outcome. Such a contradiction should never be allowed to occur.

I don't agree with this characterization of 113...115. I think they perfectly allow integrative voting, and now also have a safe fallback to the status quo.

I explained the reason why BUIP113, 114 set incentives to vote disintegrative. You are free to disagree, but just saying "I disagree" without a reason is not helpful.

Quoting myself:

For example, you have nine members: 4 vote only for keeping BCH, 4 only for keeping BSV, but one reasonable BCH-supporter wants to support both and adds a vote for BSV. Result: Only BSV is supported.

Everybody votes for just his favorite coin - both stay.
Someone voting for his favorite coin but wants to keep the other - he risks his favorite coins is dumped.

The incentives are to vote against the other coin to help your coin to stay.

Edit: To be honest, I want both coins to stay, but are more in favor of BSV (you know). I want to vote for both - but the current setup forces me to express my intention to keep BSV by voting against BCH (which I strongly prefer to be supported by BU!).

 

[freetrader]

Than the outcome of BUIP113+114 does not represent memberhip intentions

Wrong. There is no basis for trusting the result of 117 over the result of 113+114 .

If their outcomes contradict, then there is an impasse.
That's why this BUIP is incompatible with the 113+114+115

In the example that you mentioned in your BUIP description, I think you are injecting your emotion into the matter. Why not trust BU members to express their integrative attitude as you would do?

4 vote only for keeping BCH, 4 only for keeping BSV, but one reasonable BCH-supporter wants to support both and adds a vote for BSV. Result: Only BSV is supported.

Yeah, if that happens, then that is the outcome. Because your premise was then mistaken - there is only 1 "reasonable" (according to your definition) voter and he swayed the vote.
This should not influence the result no matter how much you feel it should.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

> In the example that you mentioned in your BUIP description, I think you are injecting your emotion into the matter. Why not trust BU members to express their integrative attitude as you would do?

Because the incentives are flawed. If you want your favorite coin to stay, you have to vote for the other coin to go. The proposed buips disincentivize to vote for both coins. I would be forced to vote against BCH, which is not what I want, but just the second-worst outcome.

> Wrong. There is no basis for trusting the result of 117 over the result of 113+114 .

117 is the status quo, which is to be prefered in doubt.

If 117 impasses 113/114, it demonstrates that these proposals are flawed, as I said.

 

[freetrader]

If you want your favorite coin to stay, you have to vote for the other coin to go

I don't follow.
How does that work?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Quoting myself:

For example, you have nine members: 4 vote only for keeping BCH, 4 only for keeping BSV, but one reasonable BCH-supporter wants to support both and adds a vote for BSV. Result: Only BSV is supported.

Everybody votes for just his favorite coin - both stay.
Someone voting for his favorite coin but wants to keep the other - he risks his favorite coins is dumped.

The incentives are to vote against the other coin to help your coin to stay.

 

[theZerg]

Those other BUIPs are improperly stated, and so no voting can happen on them as is. Let's work to get those properly stated and then I think that this one will be unnecessary.

 

[Jonathan Silverblood]

Note that the references BUIPs are for supporting continued development of various chains. Voting against continued support is per definition a vote to discontinue support.

The result of this BUIP can be achieved by voting YES to both the BUIP for BCH, and the one for BSV. To continue to support **only** BCH+BSV the BUIP to continue to support BTC would also need to be voted against.

 

[theZerg]

@Jonathan Silverblood, I explained it in one of those other BUIPs but in brief, we only vote to accept or reject a BUIP. The BUIP does not get to define what "yes" or "no" is. You could think of it like if a BUIP is rejected, its like it never existed. So its definition of "no" is also rejected.

If you could redefine what yes and no votes mean, I could define a BUIP that forces my choice: a "yes" means to support X, a "no" means to not stop supporting X

Clearly Griffith isn't doing that here, his intentions are good. But to ensure that there is no ambiguity about a vote, we do not make up the BUIP rules as we go along, we follow how they are defined in the Articles.

 

[Griffith]

i have edited 113, 114, and 115 to better comply with the rules as @theZerg has suggested. if they pass coin support is dropped if they dont nothing happens for that given coin. this means that a no vote now rejects the proposal. this BUIP (117) should no longer be needed