Should members of Bitcoin Unlimited be expelled when they no longer follow Articles of Federation?

[Jonathan Silverblood]

I would like to raise a discussion about what it means to be a member of Bitcoin Unlimited, and have started the discussion on reddit since I want participation from the entire community, rather than from the bitcoin unlimited members or associates alone.

Feel free to join in on the discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b3pkv0/should_members_of_bitcoin_unlimited_be_expelled/

 

[solex]

@Jonathan Silverblood
First and foremost, Bitcoin Unlimited is a development community with the goal to achieve onchain-scaling for Bitcoin. The first priority was to achieve this in BTC, but the inertia of node owners, propaganda by 1MB-defenders, as well as control of media such as r/Bitcoin and Coindesk made it extremely difficult. Finally the Segwit2X agreement fractured the onchain-scaling endeavour.

BU members then voted for a spinoff, via BUIP055, which is what became Bitcoin Cash, but that has fractured as well due to a personal falling-out between the technical directors of the ABC and nChain software implementations.

BU is not a political organization. Members join for a common ground, which is seeing Bitcoin develop as a globally scalable and usable p2p currency, as per the original white paper. As a matter of definition, both BCH and BSV are large-block forks, with that vision in mind. Obviously, people will have opinions about which has better chances and where they should invest their funds.

If anyone wants to effect any change in the direction of the BU organization, they should raise a BUIP detailing the change and the members will decide. That includes named motions for expulsion. The elected officers are not going to descend into petty tribalism. There exists BUIP107 which mandates BU sell its BSV coins for BCH. This BUIP was heavily defeated, so it can be seen that BCH has strong support in BU, which is one reason that BCH is the default for the BU software.

If BU's strong support for BCH is perceived in the community as not strong enough, then BCH has little chance of succeeding how its supporters want. This is because the world economic system is vast, and there are tens of thousands of potential cryptocurrency users and software developers out there, who BCH needs to win over, but few of them will become 100% BCH fanboys and fangirls, to the exclusion of all other cryptocurrencies.

 

[Jonathan Silverblood]

While for some reason all discussion about this seems to devolve into a BCH vs BSV debate, that was not my intent nor does it answer the question posed.

Bitcoin Unlimited has a document describing its foundational principles and guidelines and members of it are expected to, by and large, adhere to those principles.

The question raised here is if expelling members on the grounds that they do not follow these principles in practice. I included some examples in the discussion that I personally saw as things that I believe might be against the principles, but I haven't called for anyones expulsion.

I merely wanted to know what to expect going forward.

 

[freetrader]

I think we all would like to avoid BU's work being dragged into a maelstrom of petty politics.
Which is why members have shown restraint from raising such BUIPs in the past, even though some were sometimes tempted to do so over perceived contraventions of at least the spirit of the Articles (GCBU records such conversations).

BU is not a political organization.

I hope it can remain such.

 

[solex]

@Jonathan Silverblood
BU has been running for 3.5 years and there has not been any BUIP raised against a member. As @freetrader points out, members have been restrained. Such action against a member, allegedly contravening the Articles, applies for conduct against the organization itself. However, the reason I mention the BCH/BSV contention is that your reddit OP focuses on the BCH/BCH division, also these discussions, and interpretation of actions has largely only occurred just before, and since, the November 2018 fork.

Rather than dealing with hypotheticals, the way forward is to detail a specific example. If it is apparent that the Articles are breached in terms of conduct against the BU organization, then a BUIP for expulsion is appropriate for membership vote.

 

[Tom Zander]

As an outside observer that doesn't visit these forums very often, I have been catching up today and checking whats going on.

The topic of this thread shows a real fear and need, and my reading of the gold thread makes it clear to me that that need is real and pressing. That need, naturally, is one that every single organisation needs. One where you can trust your co-voters and "colleagues" to have the same general goals and general direction. As you can't build any organisation when different parts want to go drastically different directions. Notice I'm not talking about chains, or forks. Those are mere manifestations of those directions. This is not about picking a chain.

I think Jonathan figured that one out, this is not about chains. From my perspective he didn't go far enough. This topic still doesn't put the finger on the problem. As a result I doubt any votes flowing from this (as well as the picking of chains BUIPs) will have the effect you are after.

I think you should focus on inter-personal behavior here. In order to solve the issues that led to several people resigning recently, the focus should be on how people treat each other. The rest will follow.

What Jonathan wrote here and on reddit is about supporting the BU articles. But the articles are distant goals that people may strongly disagree on how to reach. A certain imposer was great in making people believe he had the same goals, until he used those he wanted to use and then he discarded them. The idea to use the BU articles just leads back to endless discussions because there is no hard evidence that one path is better than another. That's the entire point of walking the path, you don't know if it will work yet!

But here is the thing that is tangible, and it also is the differentiating factor between those chains, and those less "helpful" than others. It is how they treat their team members, it tends to also be how they treat their enemies. Notice that those people you have a problem with are typically not those that happen to choose another chain, it is those that treat you, and others, with disrespect.

As an outsider my suggestion is one where you find a path to improve this. Find actual, escalating, steps that detect, correct and in the extreme case, punish, toxic and disrespectful behavior. Ask any humans resources person for guidance, this is not something new. It is arguably worse online than it is.

But if you let it run too long, it can kill the organisation.

 

[Jonathan Silverblood]

I agree that the issue most likely runs deeper than just "what chain to support". My viewpoint was to start in one end, and then walk to the other:

First I wanted to know what action is reasonable to take when we find users who go against the shared goal, which is the articles of federation. In many cases, expelling people who work against you is reasonable, but as you said, if there are mechanism one can use to bring people together that would be an equally valid response.

My main concern is that very few are aware of those "distant goals" set out in the articles and even I have not fully understood how they came about, what motivations underly them and what interpretations best match those original intents.

For example, readin Rizuns "why you should leave" post first seemed like a pointless aggrevator, but I then read on and discovered that BU was set up the way it is in order to give non-developers a significant say in the matter.

As a non-developer-contributer to BU (for now) this was inspiring and I've since gotten slightly more engaged.

Once there's been some time and the discussion fades I'll re-read and based on my interpretation at that time I might compile a list of statements and actions I feel might be against the common goal and try to unify the vision further - either by helping people understand better and come to the same conclusions, or by requesting that people either work towards the common goal or leave.

 

[attila]

BU is not a political organization.

Yes it is. All organizations are political because "politics" merely means social communication and power relationships.

The moment someone says "they are not political" is the moment you know they are playing the "we're not political" type of politics (ie: denial).

The question is about integrity and corruption. To say we're not "political" is attempting to side step the real issue.

The real issue here is that Bitcoin Cash is not a CASH system and cannot be used as a CASH system efficiently. Now we are seeing the members leaving and fracturing -- something that has obviously been festering for a long time now.

The fact that "Bitcoin Unlimited" is building a client for something that is obviously not a CASH system and is certainly not Bitcoin either shows the level of corruption and integrity in the organization.

You want to argue BCH is indeed a CASH system?

Fine, then please share with me how this 'CASH SYSTEM' allows me chronologically order my accounts paid and received for my corporation with cryptographic proof (backed by PoW). This is basic CASH ACCOUNTING.

No politics? Yeah, we believe you. 'Bitcoin Unlimited' is a gross misrepresentation on the level of 'Bitcoin Core'. Neither can be used as CASH and neither are Bitcoin. This is a fact.

Calling the organization "Bitcoin Unlimited" is like naming a company "100% Beef" which has mostly beef, but nonetheless less than 100%.

BU is not a political organization. Members join for a common ground, which is seeing Bitcoin develop as a globally scalable and usable p2p currency, as per the original white paper. As a matter of definition, both BCH and BSV are large-block forks, with that vision in mind. Obviously, people will have opinions about which has better chances and where they should invest their funds.

'large block forks'? BCH is a completely different thing. Intellectually dishonest and just factually wrong.

>Obviously, people will have opinions about which has better chances and where they should invest their funds.

This is not an opinion. The fact is BCH cannot be used as a CASH accounting system. It's done -- game over. Whatever it is, it's certainly not p2p cash and certainly not Bitcoin protocol.

Keep repeating the lie and ignoring reality does not make it true.

 

[freetrader]

@attila posting such a pointless rant here does not contribute to the conversation, but has resulted in you being added to my 'Ignore' list on this forum.

 

[solex]

As an outsider my suggestion is one where you find a path to improve this. Find actual, escalating, steps that detect, correct and in the extreme case, punish, toxic and disrespectful behavior. Ask any humans resources person for guidance, this is not something new. It is arguably worse online than it is.

But if you let it run too long, it can kill the organisation.

Thanks for your viewpoint @Tom Zander
I will just quote the last part, because, you rightly conclude with focus on a key point in the debate and this thread.
I rephrase: Should toxic and disrespectful behavior by BU members be punished with expulsion from BU?

My view is "yes, in theory", but in practice we should do what we can to avoid reaching that point. The reason is that there are a number of considerations and greyscales to take account of.

First, there is the matter of freedom of speech. People must be allowed to express their opinion. This is downfall of r/Bitcoin which was once a thriving global community for Bitcoin debate. As soon as the moderators decided on a bias to small-blockerism, a great many voices for onchain-scaling were silenced, and had to go elsewhere such as r/btc. The r/Bitcoin moderators then decided that advocating for XT or Classic or BU was toxic behavior. It becomes a matter of definition. Note, that many contributors on the GCBU thread are not BU members. Of course, people might argue that opinion is different from behavior. I would call frequent use of ad-hominem language "toxic behavior". In the BU slack for example, we have banned only 3 people in 3 years, which I think is a great testament to our tolerance for divergent opinion. We also listen to, and tolerate all views in this forum. One of the three people ejected from slack was our ex-Secretary who descended into a profanity-filled rant, despite hours of patient responses to his questioning. Banning from slack is a smaller step than expulsion from BU.

Secondly, I would encourage any BU member who really disagrees with the direction of the organization, someone who does not wish to raise a BUIP and try to get a collective decision by voting to effect a change in direction, to follow @Peter R's advice and resign. It is much more honourable to resign than to be kicked out of an organization. I respect all the BU members who have resigned for staying true to a personal principle, even if I disagree with their interpretation of why such a decision is necessary. In fact, many members have expired memberships. All that is required is not refrain from voting for a year. That is another course of action.

Thirdly, BU has members from all over the world and all walks of life. Some are anonymous. It is not reasonable for the organization to take a stand on anything which is a matter of personal importance to one or two individuals . This org is not like the Freemasons where someone might have a problem, and other members feel an obligation to assist.

BU exists solely to provide a collective focus of otherwise disparate energies to bring onchain-scaling to Bitcoin, and advance its chances of become global p2p cash as per the 2008 Satoshi white paper. Naturally, this has to be full-node software development. BU's first approach was like Classic aiming to enable scaling on BTC. Eventually, it pivoted, by member vote to support a spinoff, and the plans for that became realised in BCH.

Sadly, BCH forked and this inevitably means that some BU members are unhappy enough to resign. Before the fork, many in BU did all we could to prevent it, and there was a vote on a change (BUIP098) to allow miner voting on all seven features disputed by the ABC and SV dev teams. Miner voting is a path to resolution on consensus changes without forking, but this approach was not used by the BCH miners. As a consequence, the BU client is compatible with both resulting forks. Since then, some members have polarised in their support for one fork or the other, yet the stance of the org remains how it was before the fork, plus the BUIP votes in January.

So, to conclude, I think expulsion is an available remedy, but for members who are working against the interests of the BU org itself. It needs to be a specific action against the org, with a high bar, as "toxic behaviour" alone is too subjective a definition based on the points above. The Articles which @Jonathan Silverblood highlighted are the explanation and principles guiding what is in the interests of BU, but these are high-level, as you noted.

 

[freetrader]

Great comment, @solex.

All that is required is not refrain from voting for a year. That is another course of action.

I'd like to comment on this course of action.

Members simply not voting will make it much more difficult to reach quorum, for an extended period of time until their memberships expire.

If you intend to harm the organization's ability to reach consensus, then this is one course of action for you, instead of honorably resigning if you disagree with the aims / Articles.

 

[attila]

@attila posting such a pointless rant here does not contribute to the conversation, but has resulted in you being added to my 'Ignore' list on this forum.

Not an argument. Thank you for admitting you have not rebuttals or arguments left.

 

[solex]

@attila Your point about politics is just an intro for a diatribe against Bitcoin Cash. Obviously any group of people has some internal politics, the org itself aims to be a-political. Anyway, the remainder about BCH is not on-topic here.

 

[Tom Zander]

I rephrase: Should toxic and disrespectful behavior by BU members be punished with expulsion from BU?

Please note that this is not an correct rephrase. My actual statement was;

Find actual, escalating, steps that detect, correct and in the extreme case, punish, toxic and disrespectful behavior. Ask any humans resources person for guidance, this is not something new.

So my suggestion was to, in order,

1. detect
2. and if that doesn't work then: correct
3. if that repeatedly doesn't work then: punish

escalating systems like this in practice only really end up going through point one and two, under guidance that if people refuse to behave nice to each other that they know you can and should push further.

Your conclusion that this is about expulsion without all the other steps is not what I suggested and your strategy is one I strongly discourage anyone to use.

First, there is the matter of freedom of speech.

Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins. This is an old quote that is a very apt demonstration of principles and how "free speech" is not an absolute.
More to the point, and piling up the previous misreading, the correcting of behavior that hurts others is not censorship in any law around the world. In many cases you can even avoid removing content at all. At best it is asking people to self-sensor based on the new knowledge that their words actually hurt others.

Relevant tweet I found today:

 

[attila]

Your point about politics is just an intro for a diatribe against Bitcoin Cash. Obviously any group of people has some internal politics, the org itself aims to be a-political. Anyway, the remainder about BCH is not on-topic here.

Fair enough about your point about my diatribe. I'll watch myself there.

re:

the org itself aims to be a-political.

This is an example of 'stealth politics'. It is another example of a political strategy. It's the "we're not into politics" politics.

Let's not pretend that an organization wants nothing to do with communication and impact (ie: control, "politics"). That's the whole point of an organization. I'm not sure why you are discounting the value of good politics. The most political organizations are the ones that feel the need to say "we're not political".

Aside from that, let me be more explicit:

"Bitcoin Unlimited" building a client for non-Bitcoin networks (ie: BCH) is a distortion and a misrepresentation starting from the organization's name itself. Any wonder there is division and loss of integrity within?

I went hard against BCH because it's what members of Bitcoin Unlimited are pouring their resources into. An altcoin that is objectively not Bitcoin by merely looking at the definition of a Bitcoin.

Until this obvious contradiction is resolved. Either by purging the non-Bitcoin developers or by changing BU's name....there will continue to be tensions.

 

[Tom Zander]

Just want to share that you can click on a users name and on their profile page on the top right is a link "Ignore" which will be quite useful when used wisely.

 

[Griffith]

cant mods just delete posts from a thread if they have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[freetrader]

@Griffith : from what I gathered from Bloomie (the admin), moderatorship applies to specific sub-forums, but the forum software will display one's status as 'Moderator' wherever one has posted.

So it all depends on which specific moderator has the delete rights, and even then I think perhaps they could be disabled by the admin, not sure.

I recommend @Tom Zander 's method in the interim.
Burdening moderators can be exploited to DOS them.
In extreme cases, if someone is persistently spamming the forum, they can also be reported to the admin and action could be taken.

 

[Griffith]

@freetrader i was more asking because i thought you had the ability to do it in this case. Your explanation makes sense though.

 

[freetrader]

No @Griffith, specifically I don't.
I get occasional PMs in this forum from people asking me to delete their posts about which they feel remorse, but I just have to shrug.

I usually just report blatant spam using the 'Report' button, and eventually admin takes care of it.

In this case (Attila) I would not delete it even if I could under current circumstances, as his irrelevant content posted in these threads just seems like phishing to be "cEnSorED" to score some political points.