### VOTING is CLOSED for BUIPs 82,85,86,87,88,89 & 90 ###

[solex]

Membership vote on BU Improvement Processes

Two BUIPs are open for voting for five days - ending 08:00 UTC, 12 May 2018

Votes should be cast in the BU website voting system
In the event of a problem votes can be made in this thread and will be counted.

Votes are for/against or abstain
BUIP votes made on the website can now be aggregated for one signature. New member proposals can also be signed with one signature.

• Development BUIPs
  
  BUIP082: Opt-in Malleability Fix
  
  BUIP085: Double Spend Relaying
  
  BUIP086: bitcoincash: URI format update
  
  BUIP087: Utilization of “cash” denomination
  
  BUIP088: Double Spend Proof Creation and Forwarding
  
  
• Operational BUIP
  
  BUIP089: Blockchain Engineer Services Contract

• New Members BUIP
  
  BUIP090: New Members for Election #9

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 BUIP082 BUIP085 BUIP086 BUIP087 BUIP088 BUIP089 BUIP090
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
IPIo++YpYAkb23vWc0kaGI16JH1Z1Nv6ktq7Sr/yTL5dP8S+/MW43u6ImT7OnVM1dnWY3w+4MxKKdAwudeTvGGE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[Bagatell]

User error? I get following when using the voting page -

Bad Request
Bitcoin signature validation failed

 

[tim potter]

I'd like to see BUIP082 BUIP085 BUIP088 addressed more fundamentally by the implementation of Peter Rizun's proposed fractional-difficulty blocks, or weak blocks, as described in subchains.pdf aiming for release in November 2018.

edit:

 

[solex]

User error? I get following when using the voting page -

Bad Request
Bitcoin signature validation failed

Hmm. Did you have this problem last time?
I assume you are using 1VgVjyeCD7yQqitraVvNrZu5tFiaKHDGC
[doublepost=1525824400][/doublepost]@tim potter
Weak blocks are still in an experimental stage. @awemany has done a lot of work on it. Because there is debate as to whether a significant overall benefit results, then an evaluation of prototype results is needed.

 

[tim potter]

@solex thank you for the information and I'll reach out to @awemany . is there a specific thread as a good place to follow development and debate for weak blocks?

 

[Bagatell]

Hmm. Did you have this problem last time?
I assume you are using 1VgVjyeCD7yQqitraVvNrZu5tFiaKHDGC

Just tried it again having double checked everything and still getting 400 when I vote en bloc but it works on single items.

It's the maximum message length in Trezor

 

[Norway]

As I am travelling in asia between the Satoshi's Vision conference in Tokyo and the conference in Hong Kong may 18, I don't have access to my voting keys. So I'll have to vote the old school way and provide the signature when I get back to Norway in the end of may.

I have talked with @solex about this, and if anybody want to confirm my votes, they can contact me on these social platforms:

Twitter: @SteinLudvigsen

Organizer of this meetup: https://www.meetup.com/Oslo-Bitcoin-Meetup/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stein.h.ludvigsen

Keybase: shludvigsen

E-mail: mail@shludvigsen.com / sh@bitcoin.no

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Development BUIPs
BUIP082: -- accept
BUIP085: -- accept
BUIP086: -- accept
BUIP087: -- accept
BUIP088: -- reject

Operational BUIPs
BUIP089: -- accept
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
IGboNBbgOKi6xdhKVxhLDV841q3C0HgpizuqwQnO5vrAar6fh2XeXVramw1D5HdJx0FuzPLShNA8nA60rdJ/9ho=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Membership BUIP
BUIP090: New Members for Election #9
1. sken -- yes
2. micropresident -- yes
3. Daniel Lipshitz -- yes
4. Jonathan Vaage -- yes
5. reina -- yes
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
HzOiNZa8RXeNelP3HWIUF0P02RjlKE217dtt8qJFnfQPPanakr4wWE9+rn1yUwl87RuPxZRg6PMuORC0TA2L4I0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

EDIT: I have now signed my votes. I had to split it in two parts because my signing device has a character limit.

 

[AdrianX]

@awemany I do like this voting site, more and more. I hadn't notest the member's link/list befor with last voted date and all, it's convenien, nice touch.

I'm totally looking forward to the day everyone uses it @Norway

I have a question, the "Expired" column, it made me curious.

Why are expired members not moved to a separate table below the member's table treated in a similar way to the New Member Applications?

When looking at the member's table, I think the total number of listed members should contain only the total number of voting members.

My question is, in the case where the quorum is needed say number 50% of voting members, is the number of members calculated on the members in the list or active members not expired?

At a glance, it's confusing because it looks like there are 83 members but if I counted correctly, there are only 72 eligible to vote. The list should be 72 active members and a separate list of 11 expired members.

Then just out of curiosity when say we need 51% in favour with a 50% participation and we have an odd number of members would the system round up or down for 50% quorum?

On a not so important note, I think if we have quarterly votes, we would know when a member's last voting opportunity is before his membership expires. Having a countdown to expire may be useful, like the last chance to vote to warning.

 

[Windowly]

@AdrianX I think there are actually only 41 members at this time.
[doublepost=1526003666][/doublepost]

It's the maximum message length in Trezor

I use a key I uploaded to Blockchain.info to sign my votes because the Trezor's maximum message length is so annoying.

 

[AdrianX]

@Windowly @awemany where can I see a list of eligible voting members?

 

[Windowly]

@AdrianX This list works but you have to ignore the numbers which are rather wacky. I just count the eligible voting members by hand (using the list).
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/render/member_list/17fedb2146b90528805cd8f43b585bfbc3db5e1343eb665d35e9976118a970ce

 

[AdrianX]

I see my mistake was subtracting 11 from 83 (I counted the Expired - yes not the no)

 

[Windowly]

Yes, there is 41 valid members altogether. There are 4 83s. A lot of numbers are missing as well. For instance it goes 1, 2, 3 and then the next number is 7.

 

[solex]

Indeed, there are 41 active members at present. The gaps in the numbers are due to some expiring before the voting system was installed. A member needs to vote at least once a year to remain current.
edit. The 83s are due to a flaw in previous sequence number allocation. Those will be corrected after the voting is completed.

 

[Windowly]

@solex why are there so many 83s?

 

[solex]

Voting will be closing in one hour.​

 

[solex]

Results of the May 2018 BU vote
Thanks very much to all members who voted, and congratulations to the new members!
The voting system is making this a fast and easy process, especially the facility to aggregate votes. Special thanks to @awemany for his work on it.

key: for:against:abstentions:spoil
The result is from the voting system.[*]

BUIP082 PASSED 16:2:3
BUIP085 PASSED 21:0:0
BUIP086 PASSED 17:1:3
BUIP087 PASSED 14:7:2
BUIP088 PASSED 12:2:6
BUIP089 PASSED 21:0:0

BUIP090 New Members:
1. @sken DECLINED 5:2:10
2. @micropresident INDUCTED 14:1:2
2. @Daniel Lipshitz INDUCTED 12:2:4
2. @Jonathan Vaage INDUCTED 16:1:1
2. @reina INDUCTED 17:1:1

Quorum 41/4 (11) met, with 75% votes FOR, on BUIP 88
Quorum 41/2 (21) met, with 50% votes FOR, on BUIPs 82,85,86,87,89
--------
[*] I will update the totals here to reflect @Norway's manual vote once he has been able to sign it.