BUIP141: (closed) Restrict voting rights for Non-publicly identified members

[torusJKL]

BUIP141: Restrict voting rights for Non-publicly identified members
Submitted by torusJKL
Date: 30.11.2019

Motivation
BU strives to give its members equal voting rights.
The problem with members that are not publicly identified is that one person could be controlling multiple entities and as a result receive more power than others.

Objectives
This BUIP does not want to remove those members from BU but limit their power.

Definition
Non-publicly identified members, hereafter NPIM, are those who have an anonymous profile and can't be identified in the real world based on the information they have provided in public to all BU members.

Voting restrictions
A NPIM can't vote on BUIPs that involve:
- changes to the Articles of Federation
- changes to the rights/restrictions of a NPIM (not including this one)
- voting for new BU members
- voting on existing BU members

Exceptions
A NPIM could be declared as as known by the BU president if the member has made himself known to the president (this can happen in private).
In this case the member will have the same voting rights as a publicly known member.
This exception is voided once a new president is elected and the NPIM would need to make himself known to the new president if he wishes to receive full voting rights again.


Articles of Federation
This BUIP is not a change to the BU Articles of Federation as the possibility of voting rights restrictions are defined under

2. II, Member:
an individual who is invited (by BUIP) to join the Confederation, signs this document, and has joined or voted within the last 1 year.
Non-publicly identified members may have restricted voting or other restrictions as determined by subsequent BUIPs - this measure may be needed to restrict duplicate accounts.

As such the regular voting rules apply to this BUIP.

 

[torusJKL]

@solex please verify the assigned BUIP number and add it to the list of BUIPs.
Thanks.

 

[cypherdoc]

i agree.

 

[freetrader]

Can you please make a list of all NPIM that would be affected by this BUIP?

Also, how do you propose that ID of non-anonymous members be verified to make sure that their claimed identities are actually real and not faux, or that there history isn't full of lies and fabrications ?

Do you have any recommendations from how e.g. Calvin Ayre did this when establishing that #CraigIsSatoshi?

 

[solex]

@torusJKL The sequence number 141 is right. I have added it to the BUIP Index.
Hopefully, this draft will receive some membership debate and constructive points can be used as appropriate in any revisions.

 

[torusJKL]

Can you please make a list of all NPIM that would be affected by this BUIP?

I can add a list with people who in my eyes would qualify to this thread.
I will do this later.

I understand that the definition is the weak point of the BUIP. Maybe some other members can chip in and define what would be enough knowledge for them.

Also, how do you propose that ID of non-anonymous members be verified to make sure that their claimed identities are actually real and not faux, or that there history isn't full of lies and fabrications ?

No, it is not about knowing who the person is exactly but preventing that the same person holds two or more votes.
As such no government ID is required.

Do you have any recommendations from how e.g. Calvin Ayre did this when establishing that #CraigIsSatoshi?

Sorry, what does this have to do with anything here?
Please stay on the subject.
[doublepost=1575190395][/doublepost]@solex as the President of BU I would appreciate your input very much.
Thanks

 

[torusJKL]

Can you please make a list of all NPIM that would be affected by this BUIP?

The following is a list I created based on whom I personally know very little about and couldn't find much information in their application post.

It is very much possible that other members know these people better than I and that they are very much identified.

@bitcartel
@freetrader
@Bagatell
Wildfire_ca
painlord_2k
@bitsko
@79b79aa8
@Griffith
@imaginary_username
@Richy_T

 

[freetrader]

You know the identity of @awemany, @AdrianX , @reina, @xmodulus ?

I don't. I never cared, but I care about why you left them out. My personal list of people whose identities I don't know and whose voting rights I am not going to seek to restrict, is longer than yours.
[doublepost=1575212443,1575211687][/doublepost]And if I were to include all the pseudonymous skilled developers and other personalities working in crypto who are not yet BU members, but might be valuable BU members, I think the list would be much longer still.

Restricting their voting rights is probably a good way to deter more people from joining BU.
Especially in a time when personally identified developers get persecuted by frivolous lawsuits and are even under regulatory attack in countries where just a decade ago, it would have been unthinkable.

It's why this BUIP will not get my vote. IMO, BU should remain an organization friendly towards pseudonymous members.

For the record, none of the other pseudonymous BU member identities belong to me, despite idiotic theories peddled in the GCBU thread by BSV supporters.

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader does anyone know your identity?

Other than fearmongering do you have any practical reasons to oppose this BUIP?
the only deterrent I can think of is @awemany (aka a real person) may have to alter our online voting system to account for 2 classes of membership. But fortunately, we have a BUIP to further develop that.

re @Bagatell I met him @Satoshis Vision Japan and know he's an actual person.

 

[freetrader]

re @Bagatell I met him @Satoshis Vision Japan and know he's an actual person.

I don't doubt he's an actual person, but did you get a signature from him in person at that occasion?

Or how else would you know that the person claiming to be @Bagatell in front you, was Bagatell?

Nevermind, I don't expect you to answer that.

@freetrader does anyone know your identity?

I would assume so. It's one of my operating assumptions.

Other than fearmongering do you have any practical reasons to oppose this BUIP?

Yes, sure.
Read my posts above and you'll find the reason, which is not fear mongering but pragmatical.
[doublepost=1575229356][/doublepost]I don't know your identity, @AdrianX . And I obviously can't take just anyone's word for it. Even real persons could bribe BU officials to vouch for them, which is another huge problem with this BUIP. It actually creates such an incentive.
But tell me, do you, as a non personally identified BU member, support having your voting rights curtailed?

 

[AdrianX]

Or how else would you know that the person claiming to be @Bagatell in front you, was Bagatell?

As per the intention stated in the Articles of Federation, the provision is to restrict duplicate accounts.

Non-publicly identified members may have restricted voting or other restrictions as determined by subsequent BUIPs - this measure may be needed to restrict duplicate accounts.

While he may have many accounts, I don't think he does, if he does, we only need to let one of them vote. as @torusJKL mentions, one person would need to put a face to each account, and I think we have all met @solex it does not need to be government-issued ID, just enough or a
presence to prove the account belongs to a real person.

for practical reasons, I would support this BUIP.

Even real persons could bribe BU officials to vouch for them,

Yes they could if there was enough at stake. I could say I'd have a price, it a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than BU's reserves but hell nothing is out of the question.

Frankly, vote-buying, as I've said, is one reason voting should be relatively anonymous so as to prevent people from proving they voted one way or another. (all in good time)

BU is and should be one of many implementations, BU just does what its members think is best, Bitcoin does what its users think is best. buying votes in BU should have no impact on bitcoin the protocol.

 

[torusJKL]

You know the identity of @awemany, @AdrianX , @reina, @xmodulus ?

I don't need to know their identity.
I only need to know that they exist and have given enough evidence to support that.

I have met @awemany and @AdrianX in person (and so have multiple people in BU).
@reina was at CG Tokyo and she has more than enough Twitter presence to be sure that she is a real person.

@xmodulus has given good information about himself.
Could it be fake?
Possibly.
But no system is perfect and I think we should be more on the accepting side than restricting everyone because we haven't met them in person.

I don't doubt he's an actual person, but did you get a signature from him in person at that occasion?

Or how else would you know that the person claiming to be @Bagatell in front you, was Bagatell?

If someone hires actors to pose as a certain member than I guess they could fool us.
Worst case we have the same situation as today.


P.S.
This BUIP is not a which hunt.
It does not seek to remove members and it does not seek to remove all rights.
Only some that if manipulated could have a very strong impact on the organizational structure.
[doublepost=1575270451,1575269795][/doublepost]

I don't. I never cared, but I care about why you left them out. My personal list of people whose identities I don't know and whose voting rights I am not going to seek to restrict, is longer than yours.

You are free to present your list.
But this is not about who do we know in person but who has given enough evidence to support that they are a real person.

And if I were to include all the pseudonymous skilled developers and other personalities working in crypto who are not yet BU members, but might be valuable BU members, I think the list would be much longer still.

That has nothing to do with this BUIP.

For the record, none of the other pseudonymous BU member identities belong to me, despite idiotic theories peddled in the GCBU thread by BSV supporters.

This is very much possible.
But there is no way of knowing, is there?
You are trying to have the cake and eat it.

Restricting their voting rights is probably a good way to deter more people from joining BU.
Especially in a time when personally identified developers get persecuted by frivolous lawsuits and are even under regulatory attack in countries where just a decade ago, it would have been unthinkable.

I don't agree.
If a person is convinced of BU and wants to contribute why should this person not do it just because he can't vote on members and the articles?

By the way not every contributor needs to be a member.
You can't be a member of other implementations either and people are still contributing.

It's why this BUIP will not get my vote. IMO, BU should remain an organization friendly towards pseudonymous members.

I would not have expected anything else and this is your right.

 

[Zarathustra]

For the record, none of the other pseudonymous BU member identities belong to me, despite idiotic theories peddled in the GCBU thread by BSV supporters.

That's what nullc and his shadow acount contrarian and their shadow accounts zectro and cryptocached (who also have no other interests besides CSW/BSV) always claimed: idiotic theories.
Some weeks ago a zectro acount has been opened on this forum.

 

[Bagatell]

For the record I am the person @AdrianX met in Tokyo and I don't use any other online personas. I have no idea whether he or @torusJKL are also @reina but as she's stopped voting I don't suppose it matters.

 

[solex]

For the record, I have met @AdrianX, @awemany, @Bagatell, @bitcartel, @reina and @torusJKL.

That was prior to the Nov 2018 split and they were, still are, enthusiastic Bitcoiners keen to see the promise of the original whitepaper realized: global p2p cash for everyone.
The only people winning out of all the bitterness in the last year is the Core-blockers who are still desperately applying voltage to the Lightning Network Frankenstein so it can rise from the slab. No winners in the big-block onchain-scaling community, trying to recover lost ground from a fragmented network effect.

The best place to meet BU members in person are conferences and similar events. Most recently I met @imaginary_username at Townsville. Such events certainly reduce the number of NPIMs.

 

[torusJKL]

It's great that the list of NPIM members gets smaller.
[doublepost=1575447336,1575446511][/doublepost]Meeting in person is certainly the best way to get known as a real person but this BUIP does not try to make it a mandatory step.

 

[79b79aa8]

@torusJKL thank you for submitting this BUIP. @Zarathustra has long raised a concern about anonymous voting and the in principle possibility that it could be gamed. this possibility casts a serious doubt on BU's decision-making process.

i considered submitting a BUIP disallowing anonymous membership and voting, but as your proposal identifies, this would require a change to the Articles of Federation. yet such a modification is entirely unlikely to pass, as it would require a greater than 66% majority vote on a BUIP with at least 75% of the members voting (Art. 2, VI). the Articles of Federation presciently anticipated the issue and provided an avenue for its resolution, which your BUIP embodies.

i shall be voting in favor of this BUIP.

in order to guarantee its operability, the proposal appears to require for BU presidents to record the significant actions and decisions taken during their mandate via Bitcoin signed messages, perhaps in a minutes section of https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info. the reason is that as per the proposal, the list of those with NPIM status is relative to the incumbent president, and it seems insufficient to keep track of that via informal comments in a third-party site. in general, such a system would increase the transparency of all of BU's operations, and help members keep track of the organization's progress.

The best place to meet BU members in person are conferences and similar events.

unfortunately not all nationalities enjoy the privilege of simple, nearly unrestricted cross-border movement.

 

[torusJKL]

We could keep track of NPIM status in our voting system.
This would need development work but I don't think it is outside of the doable.

If this is seen as a good approach than I could amend this BUIP with funding for the development work needed.

 

[Griffith]

@torusJKL There is no way to verify that this system would work properly and it is has a few serious flaws including but not limited to:
1. I could never provide the president with an identity, i could just pay him to say im verified and no one would ever know
2. Without publicly posting a decent amount of information the president could reject valid submissions to be verified to him giving the president full control over who is allowed to vote for what. Basically people would have to dox themsevles
3. You have now given the president the power to apply pressure to those who revealed themselves in private. (i say apply pressure and not blackmail because saying someones name does not fit the formal definition of blackmail)


In its current form the process to get voted into member status is very loosely defined. Would it not be better to define a better membership application process and then remove all members except for officers and have everyone re-apply under those new rules?

 

[torusJKL]

Thanks for your input @Griffith

1. There is trust involved. If we can't trust our president than there is not much we can do.
Worst case it is the same like today where this user could vote multiple times.
2. No public posting is necessary. The president defines how much information is enough for him to decide.
It's not about identifying somebody but making sure that the same person can't vote twice.
3. The NIMP do not have to enter into this relationship with the president. They can just live with the fact that they have less voting rights. They can't have the cake and eat it too.

It is indeed not easy to draw the line.
If you have an idea on how to define it more precise I;m happy to amend the BUIP.

I think a better member application process would be good to have but it is not part of this BUIP.