BUIP125: (passed) Remove Norway from membership

[freetrader]

BUIP125: Remove Norway from membership
Submitted by: freetrader
Date: 2019/5/21

Summary

This BUIP will remove member #51 @Norway, aka Stein H Ludvigsen as he identifies himself, from membership rosters as well as strip him of all voting powers immediately upon conclusion of voting.

The member has recently turned to actions which will continue to reflect negatively on Bitcoin Unlimited if it tolerates such behavior from a member.
I quote some of his statements as archived in the 'References' section below:

Declaring to forthwith call Bitcoin Unlimited by the disparaging term 'Shitcoin Unlimited':

As a member of BU, I will use the name "Shitcoin Unlimited" for BU as long as Shitcoin Unlimited is not supporting a client compatible with Bitcoin © - The original protocol.

Making good on the above while mocking officials of the organization:

A consequence of this, is that @solex is the president of Shitcoin Unlimited.

Misrepresenting what the BU organization stands for:

For people who don't get it, the mocking name Shitcoin Unlimited for BU has an underlying message. It's a message saying the organization is supporting an unlimited number of shitcoins.

Repeating the slur on BU:

Suddenly, shit is moving in the right direction.

Not BTC (Shitcoin)

Not BCH (Shitcoin Cash)

Not BU (Shitcoin Unlimited)

Plotting to remove the ability of elected officials to control BU funds:

BU has a shit ton of money.

What should happen to all this money if @solex @theZerg and @Peter R , elected by the members, comes out as Satoshi Nakamoto haters?

Should the membership of BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) cut them off the stream of money?

How do we do that?

Unlike the case of BUIP122 where it was argued that his actions were not directed against BU, it is evident that his actions at this time are directed against Bitcoin Unlimited and undermine the public image and reputation of the Federation, its officers and other members.

This violates the active Articles of Federation which a standing member must uphold:

I further recognize that becoming a member of the Bitcoin Unlimited Federation and simultaneously working to undermine the Bitcoin Unlimited Vision will inflict substantial harm on the other members of the Bitcoin Unlimited Confederation

References

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190521185027/https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1465
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190521214038/https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1466

Notes

1. If @Norway formally resigns his membership, I will withdraw this BUIP prior to the next vote.
   
   
2. As the Articles of Federation clarification BUIP116 did not pass during the last election, there is no obligation to wait 4 months to vote again on a non-officer member's ejection. Furthermore, this motion to remove the member is based on new actions by the member that have been conducted since BUIP122.
   I therefore submit this BUIP for the next vote.
   
   
3. A BUIP number has been requested from @solex

 

[imaginary_username]

While I support the motivations for this BUIP, wouldn't the non-passage of the previous motion to remove him prevent this BUIP from being voted on for the next session at least?

Edit: I see the justification re: articles of confederation non-adjustment. I'll wait for others to chime in on the waiting period then.

 

[Norway]

Desperat idiots. Craig Wright invented bitcoin.

We are not waiting for laggards.

@solex is a powerhungry idiot.

 

[freetrader]

I really would encourage you not to waste your time further, but to sign a message and resign, with some last shred of dignity.

Unless you've lost access to your keys because they have been "transferred" to a trust

 

[bitsko]

Is this really what this organization is all about? Vote purges?

 

[freetrader]

No @bitsko, this is about avoiding to undermine the Bitcoin Unlimited Vision and thereby avoid substantial harm on the other members of the Bitcoin Unlimited Confederation.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Wow, you are really quick freetrader ... But imho it would be fair from Norway to resign, as he doesn't share the same chain with bu

 

[Norway]

@bitsko
Yes.

They want power. And they are losing. The real bitcoin is stripping the power from all the technocrats.

I enjoy their desparation when their Kingdom is crushing down.

I'm not going to cry for @solex. He chose his path.

Let's enjoy new earth grow.

 

[cypherdoc]

these buip's have become the shitshow.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Unless you've lost access to your keys because they have been "transferred" to a trust

 

[Zarathustra]

these buip's have become the shitshow.

Poor souls. That's all they have left.

 

[cbeast]

It's so weird to come back to this forum and find stuff like this.

 

[solex]

@bitsko, I guess BUIP123 does not count as a "purge" vote, because reasons.
This BUIP should not be necessary, but the rules are quite clear. I certainly did not expect such BUIPs to ever occur. Normally members of any org have the honor to resign when they no longer want to support it.

@cbeast Above is the short answer to why these BUIPs are occurring.

A longer answer also puts blame onto the stupid BCH blockchain fork [of Nov 2018] which we did our best to prevent at BU and XT, along with many other people who could see the long-term damage that would result. It split the ecosystem and some people have become completely polarised as a result, especially after reweighting their holdings and becoming tribally defensive about their choice.

No surprise the bad feelings spill over into here, because what marks out BU from other dev teams is that it is directly representative of the community, which was, and still is, the whole point of its governance model.

@cypherdoc You need look objectively at your own thread to see to see that it is still fighting the previous battle. When we (the founding members of BU) were active in your bitcointalk GCBU thread, we raised and explained the problem of the 1MB constant. You were dismissive of its importance at first, that it would be resolved by Core Dev in due course. Then you came over to our view that it was a major risk as it would arrest the adoption of BTC, especially as Core dev became compromised. In due course this issue did cripple Bitcoin, boosting all the alt-coins in the global market. It also became the reason we had to find a new home away from bitcointalk after the thread was locked and our posts were being deleted by admins.

BU did try to bring larger blocks to Bitcoin, and you even joined for a while. Unfortunately it was not possible to overcome the inertia of all the 1MB nodes embedded in the BTC ecosystem. A spinoff had to be considered and the BU membership approved it.

As soon as BCH was spun off, then the next priority became a push for adoption. Immediate scalability was the previous battle. By the time of the Tokyo conference, adoption was understood as the priority and lots of initiatives were coming from all sides. The BCH price was holding around 0.1 BTC. and poised to benefit from the next persistent BTC mempool backlogs.

All that momentum of network effect growth was squandered in the fork just 8 months later. That was a total gift to the Coreblockers and Blockstream. There was a reset and a slow rebuild since, but two years are lost. The problem now is the continuing toxicity between BCH and BSV people. This is exacerbated by legal actions and weaponised social media I am not seeing GCBU steering what should be the academic course, instead it is skewed because somehow 128MB block capacity is better than 32MB capacity when both forks can barely fill 0.1MB with organic demand. I am not going to include data storage of 100KB txns (BSV) or cash shuffling (BCH) as organic demand.

The count of different users is the true metric of adoption. Not simply larger transaction sizes, or more frequent automated transactions. Nevertheless, If it ever reaches the point where organic demand on BCH is crippled at 32MB then I will admit I am wrong and BSV has the best scaling approach.

Adoption also needs to occur by being welcoming to new users. This is a problem for both BCH and BSV where the public argument is vicious between the two sides, plus both sides against BTC, The whole onchain-scaling community for Bitcoin has its global p2p goals at risk because of a adoption rate slowed by bad PR. from infighting, legal actions and tribalism.

That is the big picture. Make of it what you will.

 

[Griffith]

@freetrader

>As the Articles of Federation clarification BUIP116 did not pass during the last election, there is no obligation to wait 4 months to vote again on a non-officer member's ejection. Furthermore, this motion to remove the member is based on new actions by the member that have been conducted since BUIP122.
I therefore submit this BUIP for the next vote.

unfortunately that is not true. my BUIP didnt change anything, so regardless of passing what it states are the actual rules. You could conider that BUIP "syntactic sugar"

 

[Zarathustra]

All that momentum of network effect growth was squandered in the fork just 8 months later. That was a total gift to the Coreblockers and Blockstream. There was a reset and a slow rebuild since, but two years are lost. The problem now is the continuing toxicity between BCH and BSV people. This is exacerbated by legal actions and weaponised social media I am not seeing GCBU steering what should be the academic course, instead it is skewed because somehow 128MB block capacity is better than 32MB capacity when both forks can barely fill 0.1MB with organic demand.[/USER]

Gigablocks are better than Megablocks.

@I am not going to include data storage of 100KB txns (BSV) or cash shuffling (BCH) as organic demand.

Shuffling is organic, but will be declared illegal. Data storage is organic.
Fidelity would also be organic, but is prevented by the 1MB/32MB cap.

The count of different users is the true metric of adoption. Not simply larger transaction sizes, or more frequent automated transactions.

In a communist environment, yes. In a capitalist one, no.

Nevertheless, If it ever reaches the point where organic demand on BCH is crippled at 32MB then I will admit I am wrong and BSV has the best scaling approach.

That was always the argument of the North Coreans. It's weird that the BCH supporters repeat it suddenly.

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader

>As the Articles of Federation clarification BUIP116 did not pass during the last election, there is no obligation to wait 4 months to vote again on a non-officer member's ejection. Furthermore, this motion to remove the member is based on new actions by the member that have been conducted since BUIP122.
I therefore submit this BUIP for the next vote.

unfortunately that is not true. my BUIP didnt change anything, so regardless of passing what it states are the actual rules. You could conider that BUIP "syntactic sugar"

I see it differently.

BUIP116 could have clarified the rules for removal of non-officers to include a 4 month waiting period between renewed voting.

Unfortunately not enough membership, including some elected officials, bothered to actually vote on it.

As it stands there is no such clause in the Articles, and interpretation is subjective.

Furthermore, this motion to remove the member is based on new actions by the member that have been conducted since BUIP122.

This is certainly true.
[doublepost=1558600759][/doublepost]

@bitsko
A longer answer also puts blame onto the stupid BCH blockchain fork which we did our best to prevent at BU and XT, along with many other people who could see the long-term damage that would result.

I urge you to revisit:

https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/render/proposal_vote_result/1bb6f87cc534ac62261a742ab4c0ae9a1fad239d7c45ef91cb4c09428ca7bfcc

Not only did not a single member vote to reject the proposal to split off from BTC, but you yourself voted in its favor, @solex.

And those who did not vote, did not bother to formally declare their abstention either - it could be they just forgot to set their alarm clock.

 

[solex]

@freetrader. I am referring to the split in November 2018, sorry it wasn't clear.
Of course the initiation of BCH itself is a huge success story. I amend my post to include the date...

 

[freetrader]

Thanks for the clarification @solex , and with that I think this excursion off the topic of this BUIP can be closed...

 

[attila]

"Misrepresenting what the BU organization stands for"

It is a *fact* that once Bitcoin Unlimited stopped supporting the *only Bitcoin protocol in existence* is the moment that "Bitcoin Unlimited* officially stopped fulfilling it's mission.

This is not my opinion.

It is a statement of the facts and a direct reading of the articles.

The articles can be updated anytime to fix the problem, it's very simple.

Just because 99.9% of people voted to call a "cat" a "dog" does not mean it is true.

Someone can ignore the facts and construct a virtual reality where "Bitcoin Unlimited" still has anything to do with "Bitcoin".

But then you they will face criticisms by people pointing out the facts.

The Bitcoin protocol has a very clear definition of fundamental architectural requirements to solve the double spend and time keeping problems.

It is now impossible to have any computationally backed relative chronologicial ordering within blocks on BCH.

And with BTC you can no longer sign smart contracts since the chain of digital signatures is no longer available for Segwit addresses.

I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me to call something "Bitcoin Unlimited" when it has *nothing* to do with Bitcoin protocol is a kind of consumer misrepresentation.

The biggest elephant in the room is that BU officially does not support Bitcoin.

Any discussion of any other matter without answering this fundamental question serves merely to distract people from this inconvenient fact.

 

[freetrader]

Hey look, it's the same Core talking points about "the name Bitcoin", now brought to us by Attila.

Unfortunately for you this BUIP has nothing to do with that.

What Bitcoin Unlimited can and cannot call itself is a matter primarily for its community, and you are not even a member.

Meaning that if you disagree about its use of 'Bitcoin' in its name, your way of recourse is through a court of law.

Just because someone has secured a trademark registration on the term 'Bitcoin' and may plan to embark on a little crusade of IP abuse does not mean others are obliged to stop using the term.

It is now impossible to have any computationally backed relative chronologicial ordering within blocks on BCH.

If you want to go wasting computational resources on BSV, please do so, but kindly leave BCH out of it.

Someone can ignore the facts and construct a virtual reality where "Bitcoin Unlimited" still has anything to do with "Bitcoin".

I don't see why you should be concerning yourself with that if you never concerned yourself to any significant extent before with what BU was doing in the last few years.