Title: Petition_to_not_permit_TimBeiko_to_become_new_ACD_
Category: Magicians

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-20T04:09:17.022Z

Due to the now increasingly hostile nature of EIP-1559 and the impending community split the miners do not want TimBeiko to take over the ACD meetings after Hudson leaves. During the upcoming hostile push by the EIP-1559 team Tim has been on the 1559-mining Discord supporting slandeorus remarks against miners, deleting posts against 1559, and banning those that oppose them. Below are just a few of the many problems he is creating in the mining community.
ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN EDITED TO ENSURE COMMENTS ARE NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. SORRY FOR THE LARGE IMAGES.
Tim works for Consensus which receives money from Defi to work on 1559 for them. Because of this he will not be a neutral facilitator for any meetings discussing 1559 nor should he decide on meeting agendas to include1559. Please draw your own conclusions.
image955×561 76.9 KB
Here is a post of a slanderous remark against miners that is still on the board today
image1067×613 93.2 KB
Here is a comment made three minutes after sadcat comment that was not deleted or called out for it. However this comment was deleted and the user banned
image1066×384 50.5 KB
Here are other users asking why this comment isn’t deleted and the mods (Tim, Piper, Micah, djrtwo, Butta) not saying that it is wrong and still not deleting the post.
Tim can be seen at the end trying to justify the sadcat comment by saying “When people say “miners aren’t part of the community”, they don’t necessarily mean the individuals as much as to say…”. As if he was speaking for sadcat.
image1132×488 85.4 KB
image1129×371 70.2 KB
Finally Tim trying to justify sadcats comment after a number of people objected.
image514×199 29.4 KB
Tim is completely against POW mining the way all coins have mined since the beginning. Here he actually stirs the pot with this comment against miners.
image1114×497 80.9 KB
EIP-1057 was blessed (approved) for deployment but was not implemented due to it being a “contentious fork”. Tim is already admitting 1559 will be contentious but will still push it through anyway and does not care.
image1139×386 70.3 KB
Considers miners comments on EIP-1559 “disruptive”. Gotta say when I went back to try and capture the whole context of this comment my jaw dropped. The comments by fire_kasina were not reprimanded for violating the TOS and in fact Tim backed him up by saying miners have been disruptive. He injected that, not the comment he was responding to, which was a personal attack on miners.
image1123×430 68.6 KB
As of today the majority of the community are opposed to 1559 by 62% margin. This means Tim KNOWS it will cause a chain split but continues to push it.
image1134×625 75.1 KB

Author: kladkogex
Date: 2021-01-20T12:09:50.965Z

Very very sad to read these screenshots.
Blockchain is a cooperative effort.
People do blockchain to create a more fair and inclusive world.
Everyone has to be part of decision making.  This includes miners, dapps developers, token holders, users etc.
Thats the spirit of opensource movement and blockchain is part of it.
Most people that I know in  blockchain would agree to this.
I think some of the comments above have been done in the heat of the moment.   Everyone needs to cool and think more logically and fairly.

Author: jpitts
Date: 2021-01-20T17:40:44.604Z

@CryptoBlockchainTech, I would suggest that you first organize around the basic premise of objecting to his selection for ACD Facilitator before posting evidence supporting your case. These screen shots are taken out of context. Generally, without context, these would even not be usable in any proposal you would make on an ACD call. Placing these screen shots here in this way is not appropriate IMO.
Making a case like the one which you wish to make is a delicate matter and would involve making a well-crafted case to the ACD and others involved in release management e.g. Cat Herders. I understand that you feel strongly about EIP-1559 and believe him to be biased, but please be respectful as you proceed with this effort.

Author: jpitts
Date: 2021-01-20T17:46:23.764Z

Additionally, this characterization is also not appropriate for this Forum.

It is a fact by Tim’s own admission that he is being paid by Defi to support 1559.

Author: timbeiko
Date: 2021-01-20T17:59:10.756Z

CryptoBlockchainTech:

While this is out of context Tim is stating quite clearly he is being paid for 1559. It is up to him now to deny this, his statement stands on itself.


Just to make this clear for anyone reading this: I’ve received 0 compensation outside of my ConsenSys salary for any work on 1559.
What I referred to in my comment was the Gitcoin grant that was raised for 1559 work (none of which got distributed to ConsenSys, although we did receive some funds as part of an EF grant for the work) and the donations from ETH holders to fund Tim Roughgarden’s analysis.
Not worthwhile to engage with the rest of your post, sorry.

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-20T18:00:09.402Z

Sorry but your words still speak for themself.
Screenshot_20210120-105917_Twitter1079×520 110 KB

Author: timbeiko
Date: 2021-01-20T18:02:46.100Z

That is the EF grant I linked to in the previous post.

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-20T18:09:06.060Z

timbeiko:

I’ve received 0 compensation outside of my ConsenSys salary for any work on 1559.


People are not fools. Money goes to the company you work for, you work on the project, you are being paid by the 1559 proponents. The fact that the check is not made out to you from Defi is meaningless. The money Defi gave consensus supports your salary for 1559. Just admit it and we can move on. Or I can keep going.Screenshot_20210120-110519_Brave1080×1113 105 KB

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-20T18:12:02.181Z

Please keep in mind this is not a personal attack on Tim, it is rough yes, but it needs to be discussed and brought out into the open BEFORE 1559 debate begins for implementation. Surely these questions comming out at that time would not look good.

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-20T18:13:16.765Z

ACD Facilitator role needs to be neutral and is why Hudson was such a good fit all these years.

Author: jpitts
Date: 2021-01-20T19:06:35.066Z

@CryptoBlockchainTech, I am going to block this thread because of the following inappropriate actions: 1. using Tim’s statements out of context, and 2. accusing Tim of corruption on very weak evidence. Consider this a warning.
Presenting information in order to demonstrate bias or corruption is very challenging. If carelessly posted, such information becomes misinformation or character defamation. Neither will be tolerated on this Forum.
Organizing a petition to block Tim Beiko’s selection / appointment is not what I have an issue with here. If you wish to proceed with this effort please be more thoughtful.

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-20T21:00:51.607Z

jpitts:


using Tim’s statements out of context, and 2. accusing Tim of corruption on very weak evidence. Consider this a warning.



Sorry for the misunderstanding, I have completed the suggested edits.

I have added context of all quotes
I have removed accusations of Tim being corrupt.

If there any further issues with the way I have laid this out I can again edit it.
Regards,
CBT
PS After adding context it looks worse than I originally thought. Thank you for the suggestion.

Author: rufia75
Date: 2021-01-21T01:47:36.860Z

1559 should not be approved. It is incredibly contentious and therefore risks the security of the blockchain itself.

Author: Galena1227
Date: 2021-01-21T10:16:10.695Z

Since there is concern about context, could you provide the links to the posts in the discord channel, so people can explore the surrounding context more easily?

Author: CryptoBlockchainTech
Date: 2021-01-21T11:00:55.341Z

I would be happy to, but AFK until later today. That being said I will probably pull this post in light of the pending Spark Pool news if true. Will be looking forward to working with the 1559 team soon on a compromise.

Author: Galena1227
Date: 2021-01-21T11:23:05.588Z

I think this post has merit because it still represents the miner’s interests in not having a facilitator that is hostile to their interests. Just because his proposal is being pushed into negotiations doesn’t negate the fact that he still said these things.

Author: kladkogex
Date: 2021-01-21T17:01:27.085Z

The best decision in my opinion is to leave the past behind, relax a bit and for everyone to agree, what the neutrality policy should be for a facilitator.
Since there is no written policy, it is hard to be neutral.
It is hard to argue that pretty much in any democracy the person that coordinates things adheres to some rules. Coordinating things is a search for a compromise.
The Art of War has some great arguments towards the point that respecting your enemy is the best strategy to win.
I think the core thing to avoid is to make statements about feelings and intentions.
If I say someone’s intention is to make money and not to help the project, it is a statement that can per se not be proven or disproven.
How do I know what is inside  person’s brain?)

Author: ButtaTRiBot
Date: 2021-01-22T11:07:53.833Z

I think the reason why this post was created is that the miners do not feel understood or taken seriously in EIP-1559.
I could link various posts that confirm that like this tweet or excluding miners from the conclusion of this community reachout but that is not the point.
I do believe that @timbeiko has been doing a good job overall, but not as much with EIP-1559 due to his bias. I also believe that @souptacular has been doing a better job in that regard.
If possible I’d like to ask @souptacular to take over EIP-1559 managment.

Author: Alchemist33
Date: 2021-01-24T15:49:31.396Z

I think @timbeiko  is exactly the person for management of EIP-1559. We need someone that can defend and implement EIP-1559. @CryptoBlockchainTech your petition is not against Tim, but against EIP-1559 as miners obviously have vested interest in POW. That being said, your attack on Tim as individual is unacceptable and does not lead to constructive dialogue in the community.

Author: Galena1227
Date: 2021-01-24T23:51:08.717Z

I believe that ButtaTRiBot’s proposal that TimBeiko be removed from EIP-1559 is wrong. I oppose EIP-1559 just as much as any other miner, but if an EIP has a manager that supports it, then that isn’t wrong. What I do believe is wrong is putting someone who has allowed exclusionary statements from the people that he is supposed to be managing and moderating have a position where those biases can do much greater harm to miners. He might not be a bad guy, but he let himself get wrapped up in controversy that should be disqualifying.

Author: kladkogex
Date: 2021-01-25T12:13:40.525Z

The actual problem that needs to be solved is governance.
If someone would offer me a job like that, I would simply pass on this, because it is impossible to coordinate having the lack of formalized governance.
If is a classic example of a role where you cant change anything, but people put all the blame on you.
The role in the current shape and form is meaningless since there is no conflict resolution process.
A coordinator is someone who helps to coordinate a compromise based on formal conflict resolution rules.
The current position is an engineering manager that executes what is communicated from the top.
The root of the problem is a lack of formal governance.  People are good, governance is bad.

Author: esaulpaugh
Date: 2021-01-25T16:28:29.431Z

If exclusionary statements are to be banned then I insist that inclusive statements are banned as well, due to the long history of evils done in the name of collectivism.

Author: ShaunNeal
Date: 2021-02-03T15:26:27.328Z

Hi magicians!
I would like to ask that Tim, Abdelhamid and any other Consensys employee expressly disclose their employment and roles when making posts or proposals.  The outsized role that this company plays in 1559 is ethically troubling, and the fact that no disclosure has been made, particularly in the whitepapers and, what I would call “opinion pieces” authored by Tim, is equally disturbing.
If you start off a paper by saying, I work for X company, and the technology I am proposing will benefit my employer financially/via efficiency/whatever, and…here’s why I think this technology is a good idea - it gives the reader appropriate context to decide how credible the clams are, if there is (or is not) an inherent bias and which topics or sections to view critically.
Many of the claimed benefits of 1559 have been subject to very objective criticisms which have been responded to with articles mostly by Tim, again with no employment affiliation/possible conflict disclosure.  This is, in my opinion, unethical.  The fact that Consensys makes metamask and 1559 is very closely tied to that technology makes it even more so.  I don’t fully understand how Consensys makes its money, and if it will obtain any advantage for metamask with 1559, but frank and honest disclosures by the Consensys team are warranted given that they have played central and critical (almost exclusive) roles in proposing and advancing 1559.
Maybe absolutely nothing is going on.  Maybe there’s no nefarious connection at all.  However, the fact that an employee of a private company basically runs the entire development effort of Ethereum and continues to push an agenda with no disclosure of any potential conflicts just really looks bad.