### VOTING is CLOSED for BUIPs 62,63,64,65,66 & 67 ###

[solex]

Membership vote on BU Improvement Processes

Six BUIPs are open for voting for five days after the date/time of this post.

Votes can be cast in two ways for the reason that the new voting system is still in beta:
a) using the new BU website voting system
b) replying to this thread as in previous voting events

Votes are for/against or abstain
Votes made on the website currently require a signature per BUIP and per new member proposal, and offers btc address signing only. The two will be summed together for the result.
Votes made in this thread can have one signature to refer to multiple BUIPs.

Operational BUIPs

BUIP062: Funded Development, aka Devpool

BUIP063: Support Bitcoin Cash with an official implementation

BUIP064: Support Segwit2x with an official implementation

BUIP065: Gigablock Testnet Initiative

BUIP066: Ecosystem Outreach for Onchain Scaling, Part II

Membership BUIP

BUIP067: New Members for Election #7

All listed for membership are considered together i.e. "BUIP067 FOR" or "BUIP067 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"

Abstentions can be recorded by "ABSTAIN ZZZ" or abstain and list number
BUIP067 is considered as counted last so new members may not vote on the other 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 BUIP062 BUIP063 BUIP064 BUIP065 BUIP066 BUIP067
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
ID2uPO5n5MYfSzRADqbhCG1k+ziOUkSo82ZMO3//avuqKL6m1iwnBxeVO6Sg/oRmKANUbvIOqfVuf2eKV5/NioE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[solex]

Unfortunately, we hit limitations with the voting system due to there being a hash of the membership list which is associated with each new proposal for integrity of the voting history. There was an oversight where we did not consider changing/adding members keys after an unvoted proposal was loaded. So, I regret that members who have recently provided a public key or changed it, need to use the voting thread on this occasion. We will get functionality added for key maintenance before the next vote.
Apologies for this problem.

 

[Mengerian]

OK, I cast a few votes, the system seems to be working well overall.

I would suggest an improvement, for the BUIP votes, the part you cut-and-paste to sign should have a human-readable indication of the BUIP number being voted on. (Ie, it should say "BUIP065" or equivalent) As it is now, you are just signing some hashes, so it's not easy to check that the voting system software isn't corrupting what you are voting for.

The way it works for the Member voting is good, you can read the name of the person in the string that is being signed.

 

[solex]

@Mengerian
Thanks for the feedback. Development is indeed underway to add the title in the signing meta-data.

 

[AdrianX]

I posted a link to Reddit to encourages additional discussion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/70zg1j/community_input_needed_for_bitcoin_unlimited/

if you think it's a good idea please spread the word.

 

[Windowly]

--SIGNED MESSAGE--
BUIP062 FOR
BUIP063 FOR
BUIP064 ABSTAIN
BUIP065 FOR
BUIP066 FOR

BUIP067
1. AGAINST
2. AGAINST
3. AGAINST
4. AGAINST
5. AGAINST
6. AGAINST
7. AGAINST
8. FOR
9. ABSTAIN

The negative votes for members shouldn't be taken at all personally; if I just feel I don't know enough about him/her, my vote is no. If you failed this membership voting, I'd recommend getting more involved online or through conferences, and get BU members to vouch for you.
--END OF SIGNED MESSAGE--

H0ZCruGGpNJ9Be0rqt9LcfD3F8LWgAvf6rKFfE0sh0mhE4eGb6/2eWS5fJBgBAT08touAFcmTooNeAN58yEEKNw=


Signing Key: 1LuP7s5RfwJftn4LkWw8RmtwH3h5VMKRfN

 

[torusJKL]

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP062 FOR
BUIP063 FOR
BUIP064 AGAINST
BUIP065 FOR
BUIP066 FOR
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
H1BsTmrN0n8FMNwO5jotevWfAH8KpCP8VHowVBkHW8pjMGn9Nh0PXLxYbvhDFyHLmdL7OqdM+AUS2OU1bISSdm0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I will vote for members in another message.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

##Signed Message##
BUIP062 yes
BUIP063 yes
BUIP064 yes
BUIP065 yes
BUIP066 yes
BUIP067:
1. no
2. no
3. no
4. no
5. yes
6. no
7. no
8. yes
9. yes
## End signed message ##

Signature
Hx4YJwGzK4xoqRv1azIxkBI2A+R7ZBbrd27XKdysmtJrd3PjV1cMxcu44+7Q5jSZ7Kz1CO9voMlEAm3/oHvDWhA=

(Key is 1BvayiASVCmGmg4WUJmyRHoNevWWo5snqC)

To make clear why I voted so often "no" on BUIP067: It is the duty of the new members to give us enough information that we can decide if they are no trolls and if they are willing to contribute to BU with voting. In this round most applicants did not even try to do this.

 

[Peter R]

@awemany: using the voting system again this evening, I remember how impressed I am with it! Great job (although it would be nice to sign a single action string taken over several ballots )

I voted "YES" to BUIP 062, 063, 064, 065, 066.

For BUIP 067, I voted to accept @Erik Beijnoff and @Nic. I did not cast a vote either way for the other applicants (nothing against the others, I just don't really know any of you).

 

[Peter R]

@awemany

I've received a few emails from people asking "how are the votes going?" I suspect we will see more of this if BU continues to grow.

I would love to be able to point them to your voting site and say "see for yourself." The problem though is that some people still vote the "old way" and so the vote count on the site might not be completely accurate.

Would you be interested in making an interface to allow BU officers to manually add a vote, and then point a link to the evidence (e.g., their vote as a forum post)?

Ideally, everyone will migrate to the voting system, but given human nature, I suspect this manual interface may come in handy for a long time to come.

What do you think? We still have unallocated coins for the website project to fund this additional work if you're interested.

 

[Bagatell]

##Signed Message##
BUIP062 for
BUIP063 for
BUIP064 against
BUIP065 for
BUIP066 for
BUIP067 for
## End signed message ##

H0mxGYGge2V8EtiVKfsWzKrIAxvfOXGxDT0O8SKpeI1JHU7eBZWf3AG2xGcFJv/iTS5ccXFXXWKUxYtnsebzGK8=

 

[lunar]

Votes cast on the new platform (yes for all except 64). Membership votes below, as it's still a little longwinded over there. To anyone who hasn't made the cut in this round or any previous votes, please don't be put off, and apply again next time. Active participation in the forum or various slack channels is a good step to gain more familiarity with the project and the rest of the crowd.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP067 FOR
Mike_Aetherial - reject
Crypto_indo - reject
Shadders - accept
Otaci - accept
John_Cunninghan - abstain
Daybod - abstain
KevUnltd - abstain
Nic - accept
Erik_Beijnoff - accept
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
H57UdtjoYvaQUdZEry3EKAnyAx0Qq7TNTzOYVPkA1FdCObLBxyU9vIgOKRC9TyXO9WtDt+PA8tghZAz5WF9CpPI=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Note: it would be nice if this membership vote could be done on the new system in one go, simple check boxes for each new member and a single sig for everything at the end?

 

[Windowly]

I was looking up the quorum rules and noticed there is a provision in the Articles of Confederation for voting early if one believes he/she wouldn't be available during those five election days. How would that be done?

 

[tim potter]

BUIP062: YES

BUIP063: YES

BUIP064: NO

BUIP065: YES

BUIP066: YES

Membership BUIP

BUIP067: NO

Signature:
HxPLJFvVBT1AEFWUju00tlrA+sMgkrpeVdsepQPs/HO2Rs4ONnyAQZSUhj5pcbby04NSdGI4JyjJ+RcXkQUT3Ag=

Address:
1LPTCsvUatVH4Z9UsScJHHZTPjpJRqepNm
[doublepost=1506014642][/doublepost]I agree with Chris. There are trolly trying to get membership. Be careful and make sure you thoroughly research or personally know anyone who you vote yes for.

 

[todu]

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I, Tomislav Dugandzic, reddit.com/u/todu and twitter.com/todu77 vote the following on 2017-09-21:

BUIP062 FOR
BUIP063 FOR
BUIP064 FOR
BUIP065 AGAINST  [I oppose any collaboration with the scammer Craig Wright and his company Nchain. Nchain is as bad for Bitcoin (Cash) as Blockstream in my opinion.]
BUIP066 FOR

BUIP067:
1. @Mike Aetherial:     AGAINST [Your membership application's (lack of) social media links' (eg. Twitter, Reddit) history have not convinced me that you are a big blocker.]
2. @Crypto indo:        AGAINST [Your membership application's (lack of) social media links' (eg. Twitter, Reddit) history have not convinced me that you are a big blocker.]
3. @shadders:           AGAINST [Your membership application's (lack of) social media links' (eg. Twitter, Reddit) history have not convinced me that you are a big blocker.]
4. @Otaci:              FOR     [I asked /u/jonald_fyookball to verify that @otaci controls the twitter.com/electroncash account and Jonald verified it.]
5. @John Cunningham:    FOR     [I looked through your Reddit comment history and concluded that you're a big blocker. You also confirmed your BU application through Reddit.]
6. @Daybod:             AGAINST [Your membership application's (lack of) social media links' (eg. Twitter, Reddit) history have not convinced me that you are a big blocker.]
7. @KevUnltd:           AGAINST [Your membership application's (lack of) social media links' (eg. Twitter, Reddit) history have not convinced me that you are a big blocker.]
8. @Nic:                FOR     [I watched your talk that Peter Rizun vouched for. You seem to be an honest, intelligent person friendly to BU. Peter says that he has (indirectly) verified your identity (through your bitcoin address on your paper in Ledger) so I'll vote yes for your membership application.]
9. @Erik Beijnoff:      AGAINST [Insuffiently convincing evidence that he controls the Medium account and it contains too little post history. Too little "PoW".]
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0)
Address: 1E9VsPghjhvPVDJXrbSiCt4Lk7A2DZWtRH

H0Lbo53AZ49weEqlEO29at9tQ9cmHBSpT4de3QZE7+t2anOcOFI5Cj3uMGvmdWoLZPD7kLrOwDOG55ThXZudQwc=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

 

[solex]

@Windowly
We are not making use of that provision. We keep the votes open for 5 days instead of the minimum 48 hours which gives a larger voting window anyway.

 

[tim potter]

There is no possibility of nchain patents corrupting bitcoin unlimited via BUIP065 correct?

 

[solex]

@tim potter
That's correct, we won't allow BU to be compromised. Plus the Gigablock Testnet Initiative would involve academia, and the University of British Columbia is already expressing a strong interest in participating. Ideally we want lots of institutions to join in and the scaling improvements which arise will be open source available to all.

 

[tim potter]

@Peter R I would use the vote system if I could log in and click yes / no on that front page. It seems like it's at least two pages back for each separate vote.

 

[torusJKL]

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BUIP067
FOR: 8,9
AGAINST: 1,2,6,7
ABSTAIN: 4,5
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
IB92MzoZAx5jfZtOeLGyDdVAqOYIQJ9mC+nhLW/rKVVUG6NVPijhzNSEMkazMwO/xdpWzyE4xQDloTJmtZbIZzI=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This time I have only voted for people I have met.

Applicants that provided reasonable information but I could not verify them well enough I abstained.
To those 2 applicants: please provide some more information and prove that you own the linked accounts and I will vote for you next time.

All other I have to reject. This is not personal but there was just not enough information. Please provide more and apply again.