BUIP124: New Members for Election #13

[solex]

BUIP124: New Members for Election #13
Submitted by: solex
Date: 3 May 2019
Voting dates: 5-10 May 2019

Summary

This BUIP lists the new applications for Bitcoin Unlimited membership received since the previous membership BUIP vote, and by 3 May 2019. 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. @maplesyrupsucker
Links
Twitter: https://twitter.com/maplesyrupsuckr
Memo: @maplesyrupsucker
BCH/BTC public key: 1DHqGgv6X9zPNpW2h3T8oWQi6b2gEdzNEz
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-16#post-87610

2. @LocalBitcolnCash
Links
Reddit: https://reddit.com/u/MobTwo
BCH/BTC public key: 1Q9REfADp6oKKDDMsaNvpbRqgv7TMo3dSQ
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-17#post-90115

3. @sken
Links
sken is a declined BU member applying again to join. He was first declined in BUIP090
Reddit: https://reddit.com/u/skenlrc
github: floreslorca
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sskknn00
telegram: ssklk
BCH/BTC public key: 12Hdfw24EgY9Akj9UUbKBGPJYVm9J4V2pU
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-17#post-90248

4. @Richy_T
Links
Richy_T is an expired BU member applying to rejoin. He was first inducted in BUIP036
BCH/BTC public key: 18aGLNEVjtmskE3Sj4KeW9EmqKyetdxn8o
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-18#post-91486

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.

Only legacy addresses are used in the voting system at present.

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 5/5 @sken's application will be temporarily deferred until he responds in this forum. If he waits too many days then his application will be deferred until the next vote which is pencilled in for July.
edit 5/5 #2 sken's application proceeding to vote.

------BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP124 maplesyrupsucker LocalBitcolnCash sken Richy_T
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
HwQnndQZYctKo5xsdiXLDb07ZkIZb0Uqfehv0/S+j5XwPlnPIdf2LEpqAIfVRDnI40XSYDcagSTqva6oN8EmhS0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----[/user]

 

[bitsko]

sken pioneered the discussion on blockchain pedophilia.

sken crafts narratives. if you like extreme polarization, vote for sken, he wont hesitate to fling shit until he runs out of it temporarily or enough of it sticks.

 

[solex]

Thanks @bitsko. Your information is noted. This is a definite concern.
sken was seconded by a BU member, so, should be included in the list, although his antipathy towards BU in public comments is an unpleasant pre-history as far as BU is concerned.

 

[Norway]

@maplesyrupsucker works for Roger Ver with PR and is against Bitcoin SV, the original bitcoin protocol.
He retweeted Ver's video yesterday where he says:

Craig Wright is a liar and a fraud. So sue me - again.

I believe this campaign against Craig Wright and the original bitcoin is a disgrace and will reflect bad on anyone supporting it.

 

[freetrader]

@sken , @bitsko was not polite enough to ping you in his remark so that you would have notice to defend yourself against his accusation above.

sken pioneered the discussion on blockchain pedophilia.

@bitsko, if you make an allegation like that against a prospective member, you ought to come here with some proof.

Where, how and what discussion on it did he "pioneer"?

 

[maplesyrupsucker]

@maplesyrupsucker works for Roger Ver with PR and is against Bitcoin SV, the original bitcoin protocol.
He retweeted Ver's video yesterday where he says:


I believe this campaign against Craig Wright and the original bitcoin is a disgrace and will reflect bad on anyone supporting it.

To clarify my position, I feel like people should be able to buy, sell, or use whatever cryptocurrency they please, that includes shitcoins. Were there to be a vote to dissolve support for BSV by Bitcoin Unlimited, I would absolutely vote in favour.

I also retweeted Roger's video:
after learning he was served a lawsuit in London the night prior at a Bitcoin Cash meetup. I will remove that RT when Salt-oshi just signs some keys. Preferably not using this tool that allows anyone to sign the genesis block (https://news.bitcoin.com/this-faketoshi-signature-tool-lets-anyone-become-satoshi-nakamoto/)

 

[Norway]

@maplesyrupsucker
Thanks for making your position clear.

 

[Roy Badami]

@solex
Somehow in the OP @LocalBitcolnCash links to @sken 's profile. Also, you're missing the link to his application to join BU: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/page-17#post-90115

It might also be helpful for you to explicitly identify Richy_T as a lapsed member seeking to rejoin, as I think has been done in the past. Always assuming you're comfortable that is the case, of course. (It appears he - or someone going by that name - was originally inducted in BUIP036, but it took a little digging to find it.)

 

[Norway]

Hard to find much info on @LocalBitcolnCash.

Is this person behind the unregistered money transmitter service https://localbitcoincash.org/? (They offer escrow service, making them a money transmitter.)

 

[bitsko]

@sken , @bitsko was not polite enough to ping you in his remark so that you would have notice to defend yourself against his accusation above.


@bitsko, if you make an allegation like that against a prospective member, you ought to come here with some proof.

Where, how and what discussion on it did he "pioneer"?

Youre going to vote politically no matter the depth of my explanation.

 

[freetrader]

@solex , has @bitsko provided you with any evidence regarding his allegation against @sken ?

@bitsko : Not providing details shows you are arguing in bad faith.

 

[Norway]

If @LocalBitcolnCash is anonymous because he/she runs an illegal business, it would be nice to know before we vote.

 

[solex]

@Roy Badami
Thanks very much for your correction and comment! These are applied.

@Norway, BU has permitted anonymous members since the beginning. I am aware that LocalBitcoinCash received a lot of blowback from Core supporters when they forked the software and service for BCH. At the time you would have applauded that action. Temporary evidence was provided by @LocalBitcolnCash who is concerned about doxxing.
Nevertheless, the membership can decide whether to proceed with the application.

@freetrader
You will notice that sken is still in the new members application list above. This is because it is an allegation without evidence. I have not seen any yet. However, it is a serious concern, at least to me even more serious than the doxxing allegation which has led to BUIP122.
@bitsko has been a BU member for a long time and someone I have found to be closely observant of all the social media and matters relevant to the Bitcoin blockchains: BTC, BCH and BSV. Therefore, in this situation we need a rebuttal from @sken. I did immediately ping him in the membership applications thread.
As his seconder, I ask you to confirm that you have no knowledge of any substance to the allegation against sken. If you do have some knowledge, then I ask that you reconsider your seconding of him.

BU as an organisation has taken a lot of unwarranted hits on social media lately. Therefore, due diligence on new members remains of great importance to the integrity of the org.

 

[Norway]

@solex
Localbitcoins.com is a registered company in Finland following regulations.
LocalBitcolnCash.org is an anonymous webpage hiding Whois data behind a proxy and is most likely illegal.

 

[solex]

@Norway. I see the distinction.
Out of interest. If it was LocalBitcolnBSV.org would you be cool with it regardless of registration?

 

[Norway]

@solex
Not really. My own company may engage in exchanging in the future, but we wouldn't do it without following rules and regulation.

It's time for bitcoin to grow up. I don't think the anonymous anarchy route is a good path forward, neither for bitcoin or BU.

 

[solex]

Isn't it the case that LocalBitcoins acts as introducer and escrow? Often the buyer and seller meet and transfer funds p2p. (At least that was what I did when I tried it in 2013). This is not exactly the same as money transmitter business, and laws on this differ across the world.

About Bitcoin growing up and throwing off its anarcho roots. Well, yes that it true to a degree, it needs to happen, but the pressure for use of cryptocurrency is also coming from governments worldwide who are neck-deep in a financial surveillance culture. They want to control everything by controlling all money flows. They want to reduce the usage of fiat cash because of its anonymous transfer nature, and force money into bank accounts where interest rates can be zero or negative. Frankly, this is Orwellian and anti-freedom.

I think the membership should be allowed to decide whether LocalBitcoinCash is on the wrong or right side of this global struggle,

 

[Norway]

It's the "escrow" part I think is illegal. And yes, I agree that the membership should be allowed to decide. I just think it's worth pointing out that he/she is probably anonymous because he/she may be a criminal.

I have written before that I think in general, it's a bad idea to elect new anonymous members unless they have a very old and known internet presence with all the social media manipulation going on.

And I frankly don't believe the reasons @LocalBitcolnCash give for being anonymous. The service can be ddos'ed without knowing who runs it. The more obvious reason is hiding from the law.

 

[Jonathan Silverblood]

My opinion on the matter is that people should neither need nor have to explain why they are or want to remain anonymous.

Privacy is the underlying feature that allows people to act according to their beliefs, rather then according to their expectations of how others will treat them.

Bitcoin Unlimited has been clear in that it wants to have a diverse member base as to not fall for any specific narrow mindset. Social and legal pressures could create a narrowment of expressed opinions and as such, I believe that being anonymous is a positive trait for a BU member.

That said, I do agree that it is indeed a bad idea to elect new members unless they have a history from which we can judge them. That history does not need to be public, so to all those who feel they do not have enough information to make a decision - contact the person publically or privately and talk with them so that you may gain the information you need to make an educated and well-formed decision.

 

[freetrader]

@solex:

have not seen any [evidence] yet

Thank you for confirming this.
Neither have I. But I'm going to have a look again, and am open to people submitting evidence to me either in this thread or via PM, under the condition that I can share such evidence with BU officials.
If I do find something incriminating, I will naturally withdraw the seconding.
If I don't, and those making such allegations do not step forward with evidence, then I am happy to let the vote go forward for the membership to decide.

My seconding of @sken is not an endorsement of his application, merely a facilitation of the application process since I had no objection at the time to him applying again. And my seconding is not an indication of which way I am going to vote.

@sken : it is in your own interest to rebut the allegations. Silence on them does not work in your favor.
You have also not signed a message from the key you used in your previous application, despite me asking you a long time ago. That also does not work in your favor when it comes to my vote on your application.