### VOTING is CLOSED for BUIPs 43,46,47 & 48 ###

[solex]

Membership vote on BU Improvement Processes

Four BUIPs are open for voting for five days - ending March 15th.

Please reply to this thread

Votes are for/against or yes/no
Votes can be in the same message e.g. "for x,y,z" or "against a,b,c" where x,y,z etc are BUIP numbers.

Operational BUIPs

BUIP043: Exploring the Bitcoin Network

BUIP046: Faster, Higher Quality Publication Process for the Bitcoin Research Journal Ledger

BUIP047: The Future of Bitcoin - Development & Scaling Conference

Membership BUIP

BUIP048: New Members for Election #5

All listed for membership are considered together i.e. "BUIP048 FOR" or "BUIP048 AGAINST"
Exceptions may be identified by using list number and +/- to include or exclude e.g. -88 +99 or exclusions may be made by name e.g. "AGAINST ZZZ"
edit: Abstentions can be recorded by "ABSTAIN ZZZ" or abstain and list number
BUIP048 is considered as counted last so new members may not vote on the Operational BUIPs concurrent with this.

Votes need to be signed.

Please get involved. Bitcoin Unlimited is the start of a new paradigm where the membership decides on the admission of new members and operational changes requiring expenditure of funds.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
VOTING IS OPEN for BUIP043 BUIP046 BUIP047 BUIP048
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
H23zFmB7umLkXimhLhC0lehotqTOXQZmzZAAv4vc0ROODAceiWEm4UjhqTn3XG/eKOM7VlwSdI3scxgbInw8zko=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@solex
The link to the member vote seems to be wrong.

 

[solex]

Thanks, fixed.

 

[awemany]

Awemany votes on Bitcoin Unlimited proposals on Friday, March 10th 2017:

BUIP043: AGAINST
BUIP046: FOR
BUIP047: FOR

Sig: IC6jDaCLgbCImOWlAWg+L1h64Rm/e8/H0g1VfvGAzkEqFsnDUMMJ4BorKapX7PXTGEDFKotBBMIw+3x5o3Fg9Ro=

Rationale for AGAINST on BUIP043: Not enough information on proposal details and desired outcomes of this work. Sorry.

BUIP048, I need to take some more time to go through all member applications individually tomorrow. I will vote against member applications that don't have a visibly sane stance on our issues since a while. At the risk of 'evaporative belief cooling', I still do not want to risk screwing up BU at this critical time and I hope those who are looking too much like a blank page yet regarding this will understand me and this POV, even though they might be a perfect fit.

I also feel bad that I don't have the voting system finished yet

 

[jbreher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

BUIP043: NACK
BUIP046: ACK
BUIP047: ACK
BUIP048: Abstain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJYw1rAAAoJEJRiQxNDJu8GrHsH/3gOePrA2VGAKKDSAsSz3ZK8
6E0ZXePVhMHgS/s30Oxk2DPDRlYlU+C3wV9x0NymRgLostOv8iVMuZR/hpbUn1Ku
9lSPEUnWODxoiYb5X3dkTStPiYZ2DDnBMoIAf8UhiC6f+PHd1FunkRS+E69WWeBK
BzJM2iNOTXpiS6T6RJrY96Weu2PfQRQpT0/b1Bmv2Izs0SVlpBAoWDMSRrhCDZ+Q
vA1/v09uvp1ascnPEI8JDm1D+OJzH9KISXXMsWLY8AjJwadXgk7DmbnGouMzxk2f
LGvUpAvqN5xnoOTtl2ofijaQnnvzWdHQ8NJfICq+fVKDkSRfUWSLurEZpuj/YL0=
=q1Xs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[kostialevin]

BUIP043: YES
BUIP046: YES
BUIP047: YES
BUIP048: YES

G2VLgNwAf6CE+PXfqgkYCf0wKC2QBOa2YonVfSTy5DjMQsE6R5zLVDqqihR7uLVrmSkH7EKusbuz+OFl2bz4B4M=

 

[Peter Tschipper]

------BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP043: NO
BUIP046: YES
BUIP047: YES
BUIP048: AGAINST @Diester @bitsein @Henry James
------END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

As for BUIP043 I was a little torn, I think that doing research is great but there is already a lot of Blockchain research that has been done by many others. I'm not really clear as to how this particular research is going to benefit us.

As for @Diester [USER=2279]@bitsein @Henry James , sorry , I just don't feel I know enough about you right now to make a positive vote. We have to be very careful these days about who we let in as "voting" members. But you don't have to be able to vote to "be" a participating or contributing member!

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
H/ZlLdHQ4SdIabQEeFuhIWmm2jMt2GEqqChlw9gbQFadBKXyPwX8AKKDqjiKLEbJJOs/IjX9WTiLAZBzcBeQJJM=[/USER]

 

[freetrader]

EDIT: the votes below have been superceded by a revision at this link:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/voting-is-open-for-buips-43-46-47-48.1888/page-2#post-35868

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Comment: Signed by Bitcoin Armory v0.93.2

BUIP043: FOR
BUIP046: FOR
BUIP047: FOR
BUIP048: FOR -3 -6 -10 -13

Signed by freetrader with 1Libre7MGkCXr7pUAEbwihCR9X4quYAyQ4 on 11 March 2017
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----


HJMNhoLk5YULrRK0WAcL++kOMCh9U2WQ53PdHVeO6kVzZeOxtE0ckXRf8aylzLqr
TkNoysLH7Au4TWELU+YbEkA=
=kjIn
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

New applicants for whom I didn't vote this time around:
I don't have a permanent reason to vote against any of you (not yet - that's the good news ), but I would like you to participate more before I can vote positively for you.

 

[bitsein]

Understood guys, bit of a catch-22 for some of us, I'm perhaps too privacy-minded to allow myself to be voted on with the details needed, and yet also acutely aware why you all need this. Maybe down the line.

 

[Roy Badami]

It isn't clear to me how the BUIP 48 votes cast by @freetrader and @Peter Tschipper will be counted. Are the members they are not voting for counted as votes against, or abstentions?

I presume that on BUIP 48 I am able to vote for some members, against some members, and abstain on some others?

 

[freetrader]

@Roy Badami : I've always taken the negatives as AGAINST votes, but I see the point of clarity that you're making. Let my intentions be confirmed: I am not abstaining in any of these votes.

 

[Roy Badami]

@freetrader That was my interpretation of your vote, too - but @Peter Tschipper vote is less clear to me.

 

[solex]

@Roy Badami @freetrader
Fair points. Consideration for abstentions on individuals within the membership BUIP was not offered. It should be and this is described in the OP now.
Abstentions can be recorded by "ABSTAIN ZZZ" or abstain and list number
Votes against count as -1, while abstentions count as zero.

 

[TrevinHofmann]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

BUIP043: AGAINST
BUIP046: FOR
BUIP047: FOR
BUIP048: FOR, -6 -10 -13

Today, I have verified @Wildfire.ca as /u/WildFireca on Reddit, @jsmith_dev as /u/jsmith_dev on Reddit, @kyuupichan as "kyuupichan" on Github via email, and @tkg as /u/c3vin on Reddit.

My only reason for voting against @Diestor, @bitsein, and @Henry James is a lack of established identity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYxhjZAAoJEHN9+j2LWHieDYsH/RVeznyXepYndWzZeQ3ejKJe
K5YFPFOsF9m/OzS/MqDDv2Zl0jyCeA7IEx96ZZaHH4rEwM6qDTTBgvVldLZ6ywL/
w/KP85px1gU4ofa1oG6M+L9DlSieggCPGLu5QV+MCrxR0UjS236u/LRxc2kYFZQP
b4aZP+7tDDouULBnUAEKdC6rU49/J7yflFiE90CPpxLb1JX5qxaY93BEfPY62tNA
InoN2k1AWTWsUklaFkntm44X8gKgvkIAcGzwvcGM8zFknVe9XUu+SYgoWGBDGm0l
1Wg6TuIOvSOkRn1COf8Xn75lw6km8gayiIxAsvYE57/qOkWSh+Rs6WTVuXwTFx0=
=0qfQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[solex]

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP043: FOR
BUIP046: FOR
BUIP047: FOR
BUIP048: FOR, -6 -13, ABSTAIN 10
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
IIg0UwkFeVoEXsi4j3qrUZsmvqRjevSlBnc/jKZeYCcYfx9ihlE44Y3nq3mWRs4vQuLHbmbnVa08879wUIDmWOQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[digitsu]

BUIP 043

YES

BUIP 046

YES

BUIP 047

YES


BUIP 048 - New Members

@jsmith_dev

YES

@Windowly

YES

@Wildfire.ca

YES

@tkg

YES

@kyuupichan

YES

@Diestor

NO (no info)

@todu

YES (bitcointalk.org profile matches twitter profile)

@Jefferson Nunn

YES

@Rhett Creighton

YES

@bitsein

NO (seems like he is a believer, but lack of verifiable credentials/public stances on scaling)

@crysosanth

YES

@marcus

NO (seems like a nice guy and can certainly wants to help with dev work, but not enough history to give him voting keys IMHO)

@Henry James

NO (not enough info on background)

@torusJKL

YES

@CubicEarth

YES
===============signature====================
HM/OxWRCdyvPLXMMP+BdP6q/JfrmZQR/x3uqW20kaT1OQuvG4PyOUIo7faDGgjAHkiWgMtcQcPQ/AElwXM5934s=

 

[freetrader]

@Roy Badami @freetrader
Fair points. Consideration for abstentions on individuals within the membership BUIP was not offered. It should be and this is described in the OP now.
Abstentions can be recorded by "ABSTAIN ZZZ" or abstain and list number
Votes against count as -1, while abstentions count as zero.

Solex, given that this new voting possibility was introduced after I voted, am I allowed to change some of my votes during this voting round?
Normally, the articles prevent this, but I feel changing the mechanics of allowed votes is an exceptional situation and I actually have a need for it.

 

[awemany]

Awemany BU vote on BUIP048, Mar 14th 2017

ACCEPT: (2, Windowly), (5, kyuupichan), (7, todu)
REJECT: (3, Wildfire.ca), (6, Diestor), (10, pauleb)
ABSTAIN: all others

Sig: H5rTl6w6hzj078ipt8tsJ0Snrblw3IKaKVmNsvLFF3aNdl0+0tMguy9pSlkowMiFOzJveBFnAhY2Yik/tDWyDFQ=

 

[Bagatell]

pubkey: 1VgVjyeCD7yQqitraVvNrZu5tFiaKHDGC

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP043: FOR
BUIP046: FOR
BUIP047: FOR
BUIP048: FOR, -6, -10, -13
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
IJtAAo8rNibFsW5qVyF2UoZlZ8b1a8c4Xuj7EtbmYvqsWKYGoZbi51a5QwzyOvovvc4SIq6H/aQUAQpIbfyQ59g=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[Roy Badami]

BUIP043: AGAINST
BUIP046: FOR
BUIP047: FOR
BUIP048 2,5,7,11,14,15: FOR
BUIP048 1,4,6,9,10,13: AGAINST
(Abstain on other membership candidates)

H5pwHrgKUi0hDtQHkfQsNYUYWlyiieqdepfMaQGw671TOycNU+HPjvszG+Q/+jqCi5P9jOa9FR8P+7intjNb+js=

With apologies to all the members I didn't support. I hate having to do this, but I agree with @awemany that we have to be very careful at this stage that we know something about the people we're granting voting rights to. If I voted AGAINST you please don't take it personally - it will be because I couldn't find enough history of you in the Bitcoin space, particularly with respect to your opinion on the issues we care about in BU. (Those few I abstained on were the ones I was on the fence over, but ultimately decided there still wasn't enough for me to support at this stage.)

EDIT: I also feel somewhat hypocritical about doing this, given how uncomfortable I felt about having to be 'vetted' to join myself. But we are where we are, vis a vis the Bitcoin civil war, and needs must. I hope that anyone who fails to be elected this time round isn't discouraged from participating in a non-voting capacity, or indeed from reapplying in a future membership round.

Re BUIP043, this looks like useful research, and I hope you find funding, but I don't feel it has sufficient relevance to us to support the BUIP.
[doublepost=1489434159][/doublepost]

Abstentions can be recorded by "ABSTAIN ZZZ" or abstain and list number
Votes against count as -1, while abstentions count as zero.

I presume also that abstentions don't count towards quorum? It would be a bit weird if someone could be elected with dozens of abstentions and one vote for.