BUIP123: (closed) Remove imaginary username from membership

[bitsko]

BUIP123 Remove imaginary_username from membership
Submitted by: bitsko
Date: 2019/4/14
edit 2019/5/4 voting thresholds updated by solex.

Summary
A Bitcoin Unlimited member has recently participated in an online witchhunt against norway. Such an act endangers the personal safety of regular persons, and he has shown neither remorse nor ignorance about the potential consequences of his act. It is my opinion that continued membership of such a malicious individual impedes future activities of BU, and he should be removed from membership rosters.


Proposal


This BUIP will remove member Imaginary_username, from membership rosters as well as strip him of all voting powers immediately upon conclusion of voting.

IIn accordance with the rules clarified here: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip116-articles-of-federation-adjustment.23726/page-2#post-91701, it must pass with a majority of votes (greater than 50%) with at least 50% of members voting OR a 75% super-majority of votes with at least 25% of members voting to take effect. If it does not take effect, another vote will be barred from proposal for the next 4 months.

this guy reminds me of stalin, what a jerk

 

[imaginary_username]

I support putting this up for a vote, but for the sake of voter education, can you clarify how I endangered Norway in any way?

 

[bitsko]

No.

 

[freetrader]

In accordance with no confidence rules for officers, it must pass with a 75% super-majority of voters with at least 33% of members voting or a 66% majority vote with at least 66% of members voting to take effect. If it does not take effect, another vote will be barred from proposal for the next 4 months.

@solex, there should be consistent rules of voting between this BUIP and BUIP122. The above numbers disagree with BUIP122, which cites your opinion.

Could you please resolve the discrepancy by stating the rules that apply for these non-officer votes of no confidence BUIPs. Thanks

 

[solex]

The issues I see with this BUIP is that the conduct mentioned is not directly against the BU organisation.

This BUIP will remain in draft until such evidence comes to light.

@freetrader, my opinion under the BU rules is that removal of membership does not require a supermajority. However, it does require detail of conduct against the interests of BU. In the case of a third party matter, the threshold of determining such conduct is much higher, ideally a decision in a legal jurisdiction.

 

[bitsko]

I see.

Please allow me time to consult with Greg Maxwell as to how to proceed.

Thank you

 

[bitsko]

'The issues I see with this BUIP is that the conduct mentioned is not directly against the BU organisation'

well imuname did successfully infiltrate BU, even fooled me, and his intent is now clear to me; to purge members from the organization along political lines...

 

[solex]

@bitsko
It is sad that a consequence of the fork in November 2018 is continued and ongoing polarization of opinion between people who once had common ground in scaling Bitcoin as per the original Satoshi white paper. I understand your view, and @imaginary_username's view, that something should be done about individual memberships to try and get rid of the polarization.

However, there are three BUIPs which may well bring matters to a head, but are development focused instead.
BUIP113: Support Bitcoin SV with an Official Implementation
BUIP114: Drop support for the BSV HF Config Parameters in BUCash
BUIP115: Drop support for BTC

Failing the provision of a weight of evidence in this BUIP and BUIP122, voting in the development BUIPs will give a much clearer picture about how the BU membership wants to proceed as a whole.

 

[solex]

@imaginary_username
You replied that you support putting BUIP123 up for vote. In which case, like BUIP122, it no longer requires a critical mass of evidence. So, for reasons of consistency, this BUIP will be included as well.

 

[Windowly]

I will vote against this proposal as well even though I find Imaginary_username's actions to be inexcusable and unnecessary.

I agree 1000% with @solex that voting on development is a lot more productive than trying to kick members out of BU.

We need both @imaginary_username and @Norway in BU to help bring the original Satoshi Vision to the world.

 

[bitsko]

imuname will stop at nothing to kill the original satoshi vision.

youve been warned

 

[Roy Badami]

@solex Since this is going to a vote tomorrow, can we get clarification as to the voting thresholds that will be used? The thresholds stated in the BUIP seem to be at odds with your (reasonable) interpretation of the Articles in another thread.

 

[solex]

@Roy Badami The wording of the BU Articles could be better.
Yes, this BUIP needs updating to reflect my interpretation. Thanks for highlighting it!
@bitsko. I updated the voting paragraph to reflect that a lower voting threshold applies for it to pass.