diff options
| author | Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> | 2021-06-23 12:14:04 -0600 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2021-06-23 18:14:19 +0000 |
| commit | 9bee16cafa21f847813f42a317b662519c303aa1 (patch) | |
| tree | 3b629a173dccb344915736332ecafa60eb02ffa0 /2b/1667ca2ca9634288b52044186a44b7f904d216 | |
| parent | 8e3ee50f0fa4d3c80b59595a291e8a2f332edd6d (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-9bee16cafa21f847813f42a317b662519c303aa1.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-9bee16cafa21f847813f42a317b662519c303aa1.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
Diffstat (limited to '2b/1667ca2ca9634288b52044186a44b7f904d216')
| -rw-r--r-- | 2b/1667ca2ca9634288b52044186a44b7f904d216 | 349 |
1 files changed, 349 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2b/1667ca2ca9634288b52044186a44b7f904d216 b/2b/1667ca2ca9634288b52044186a44b7f904d216 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c3a6c588b --- /dev/null +++ b/2b/1667ca2ca9634288b52044186a44b7f904d216 @@ -0,0 +1,349 @@ +Return-Path: <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1229C000E + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:14:19 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9377583B5C + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:14:19 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, + SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id oQAsQx5Cvvnd + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:14:18 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com + [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20EA283B43 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:14:17 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id e22so3682094wrc.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:14:17 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=fEMKorE1ij8bL4nvgAUiBKc1LjGYaItWz++m7yVUQS0=; + b=WGm+c31QwVY1m7uj1DhcwXYW/0/AZRst/YOJBRGSbhrtu0VJpK2nisUrETm43CKkSD + oF/gB3Mr70fKkzMg9XkITdHR8DRGH3D+Bu/Bq3Y1aaPjMHkx0zyd4/LkgazSSMgszisH + U3r36YqKlOSUcgCBKkFBPSJfW8G1k53+5UWEJQldDzwhlcaGg5ZWOt7nEPa72YJ3CTtU + b3KeRRA7EWRlU7cDzkUhtgC2xdw+SJ78SCxCOw9K3+5JjsaGPK7w1rLuJSsj8xV6km0O + 5vt5cyGHJ/quxC8yRkpFuqRU6bK01AGUSUMVo+3htbGMT27ahBStlgp0NSq+FRi92o/9 + 2iTQ== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=fEMKorE1ij8bL4nvgAUiBKc1LjGYaItWz++m7yVUQS0=; + b=UNu2aotDTfkPs3FhzkPBChxLegKw2BYVbd04E2gVCmHYjl2EAkOKq5c73gYOuwuE3o + /EW0k8eeGGRao42vZIRuhUwu0FevooLG7emDRlQbqc9XaLFyXoo6YQMT5VP8JiHp40BD + GWPQYvGSw2yX2BikAur2JLN6RFHX9fcGK3vcWB6oVln8F+avjCz7mTPnNMkVyKTy6p1n + IlbFist5/mU6Uvr9168Zt4W730yhjWJglkKL0h97WPTvt6Ui0ip5z+naODV0FIxawDYs + IGrrBiGyBMj1Hhe/RUdMOFIqqNWRUl3Btvka9eqW/SZ56pGCmP6wAJJdvqytM2ppSx4M + srrg== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531t8jv3rzLLc2+3tNjDsBtYgfYTYvmaxSXCIOGpWVq7JrWSy0dK + NmKrWnkXp4wZjwmwG2J77Oi9E7TWxWzPDq8n1ro= +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRklZzv4i/C6kK39YwQRS+7/wfpQiDtxlSS8DWJN6uyynVC20E7l4ps7e84ko+23ytl8by+TBKorpR5VvjuPM= +X-Received: by 2002:adf:f048:: with SMTP id t8mr1579769wro.35.1624472056344; + Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:14:16 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> + <CAJowKg+QM94g+JcC-E-NGD4J9-nXHWt5kBw14bXTAWaqZz=bYw@mail.gmail.com> + <CALeFGL02d9NVp+yobrtc2g6k2nBjBj0Qb==3Ukkbi8C_zb5qMg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAD5xwhi1G3Jj3FAAWQP3BXTK34ugDQY32hq-cQnt8Ny8JP4eGQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJowKgJ1x5YKWS1S-sgdU3Tn+hPT64iiUCwG8qh-JS0xqS7ieA@mail.gmail.com> + <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> + <CAJ4-pEBYJNuNMUCt5J5DbKU4RC9JXcO7gZdKh2Vq6PHCmddaeg@mail.gmail.com> + <hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com> + <CAJ4-pECb9QSUDPax8SU+-KGwPgVju=YKax9eb-iRwAmZGcMcPg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJowKgJ3DOrtO+_XzoEnqQUQdge=zCopg2mvuy5F=RSeaVPJYQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAKy8i-17Snk7ZeTL_U8ULDm3S5fYRXf412p1NpS_6CTT4Fhm0A@mail.gmail.com> + <CAKy8i-0efmC_AmAK6oLy1FooXd6WeSeOvRUOJ8Lb6BJoqduDTQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAGpPWDaiGdgrECZzvM67O6t-kVieL4uR4ydEkHr+gwUB7Ahykg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAH5Bsr2WaOhSObNX-=61md6tF49auaH7wUB08qKv5baiFutxSw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAH+Axy7mc9pRfnQwmPx5BE8z9R3gGA2FtJkBEcbprKSgW0M6zg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAHeORg+b=2j9zTFeWEmxWBBQ584oSXpN6t0ujnvbAteWLSbJ3Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CAGpPWDZjsiHgN2_nzgpwF-Pq8btdbPQm3=f06S8nNfpSp+_GHw@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDZjsiHgN2_nzgpwF-Pq8btdbPQm3=f06S8nNfpSp+_GHw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:14:04 -0600 +Message-ID: <CALeFGL3GZZy8J3VKbuQjof_c7nbGTCd-eY3_h3mH=mZnKehLMw@mail.gmail.com> +To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ddb82205c572dff8" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:59:47 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:14:19 -0000 + +--000000000000ddb82205c572dff8 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of +thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other +currencies on the market. + +The difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum of coin +holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are going to a +particular destination. Nothing requires these staking nodes to include +particular transactions into a block. With that in mind, it isn't just that +you require the permission of the person who sold you the coins, which I +can agree is a less dangerous form of permission, but you must also require +the permission of at least 51% of the coin holders to even receive those +coins in the first place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and +this difference absolutely should not be trivialized. + +Keagan + +On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> > Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner +> of a token +> +> The idea that proof of stake is not permissionless is completely invalid. +> It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps we can come to an +> agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propose the following: +> +> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for PoS Coin X with tens of +> thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell the coin for other +> currencies on the market. +> +> If the premise above is true, then there is no significant permission +> needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS Coin X. If you make a +> bid on someone's coins and they don't like you and refuse, you can move on +> to any one of the other tens of thousands of people in that marketplace. +> Would you agree, Cloud Strife, that this situation couldn't be considered +> "permissioned"? +> +> If not, consider that participation in *any* decentralized system requires +> the permission of at least one user in that system. If there are thousands +> of bitcoin public nodes, you require the permission of at least one of them +> to participate in bitcoin. No one considers bitcoin "permissioned" because +> of this. Do you agree? +> +> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud Strife via bitcoin-dev < +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> +>> Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is +>> permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost which +>> exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable. +>> +>> Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner +>> of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both choices they never +>> have to make since there are no continuous costs with producing blocks +>> forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier to entry if the +>> previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give up the token they +>> control. +>> +>> You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a central +>> party in control of the authority token before you can produce blocks on +>> your rasberry Pi. +>> +>> Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless +>> protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols where +>> control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissionless) parties. +>> +>> There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured out +>> long long ago. +>> +>> +>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy +>> +>> +>> https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca +>> +>> +>> +>> +>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev < +>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>> +>>> +>>> @Lloyd wrote: +>>> +>>> Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys online +>>>> so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation keys"[1] that +>>>> will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key's behalf. +>>>> Hopefully you've spotted the problem. +>>>> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a nice +>>>> website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return. +>>>> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace! +>>>> +>>> +>>> I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want +>>> to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure it to work, +>>> and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a +>>> mining pool, which might use your hashing power for nefarious purposes. Or +>>> you might skip the hardware all together and fall for some "cloud mining" +>>> scheme with a pretty website and a high rate of advertised return. So as +>>> you can see, Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well! +>>> +>>> The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own +>>> validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have +>>> the professional/expert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur +>>> way of participating. The only difference is, with PoS the +>>> professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a +>>> web connection, which is a much lower barrier to entry than PoW. +>>> _______________________________________________ +>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list +>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +>>> +>> _______________________________________________ +>> bitcoin-dev mailing list +>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +>> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + +--000000000000ddb82205c572dff8 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>> Premise: There is a healthy exchange market for = +PoS Coin X with tens of thousands of participants bidding to buy and sell t= +he coin for other currencies on the market.=C2=A0<br></div><div><br></div>T= +he difference here though is that Proof of Stake allows the quorum of coin = +holders to block the exchange of said coins if they are going to a particul= +ar destination. Nothing requires these staking nodes to include particular = +transactions into a block. With that in mind, it isn't just that you re= +quire the permission of the person who sold you the coins, which I can agre= +e is a less dangerous form of permission, but you must also require the per= +mission of at least 51% of the coin holders to even receive those coins in = +the first place. This is not true in a Proof of Work system and this differ= +ence absolutely should not be trivialized.<div><br></div><div>Keagan</div><= +/div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">O= +n Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:30 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"= +mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= +tion.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= +"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-le= +ft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0 + +Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner of = +a token<div><br></div><div>The idea that proof of stake is not permissionle= +ss is completely invalid. It pains me to see such an argument here. Perhaps= + we can come to an agreement by being more specific. I'd like to propos= +e the following:</div><div><br></div><div>Premise: There is a healthy excha= +nge market for PoS Coin X with tens of thousands of participants bidding to= + buy and sell the coin for other currencies on the market.=C2=A0</div><div>= +<br></div><div>If the premise above is true, then there is no significant p= +ermission needed to enter the market for minting blocks for PoS Coin X. If = +you make a bid on someone's coins and they don't like you and refus= +e, you can move on to any one of the other tens of thousands of people in t= +hat marketplace. Would you agree, Cloud Strife, that this situation couldn&= +#39;t be considered "permissioned"?=C2=A0</div><div><br>If not, c= +onsider that participation in *any* decentralized system requires the permi= +ssion of at least one user in that system. If there are thousands of bitcoi= +n public nodes, you require the permission of at least one of them to parti= +cipate in bitcoin. No one considers bitcoin "permissioned" becaus= +e of this. Do you agree?=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d= +iv dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Cloud S= +trife via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= +on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wro= +te:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px = +0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"= +ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and en= +ergy is permissionless and exist all over the universe, permissionless=C2= +=A0cost which exists for everyone no matter who because it's unforgeabl= +e.<div><br></div><div>Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by = +the previous owner of a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both= + choices they never have to make since there are no continuous=C2=A0costs w= +ith producing blocks forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier= + to entry if the previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give = +up the token they control.</div><div><br></div><div>You're skipping the= + part where you depend on a permission of a central party in control of the= + authority token before you can produce blocks on your rasberry=C2=A0Pi.</d= +iv><div><br></div><div>Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant t= +o permissionless protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized= + protocols where control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissio= +nless) parties.</div><div><br></div><div>There's nothing=C2=A0of releva= +nce to discuss and this has been figured out long long ago.</div><div><br><= +/div><div><a href=3D"https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/P= +roof-of-Stake-Fallacy" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/libbitcoin/libb= +itcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>= +<a href=3D"https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-= +of-stake-e70b12b988ca" target=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@factchecker900= +0/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca</a><br></div><div><br><= +/div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di= +v dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James Ma= +cWhyte via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= +ion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wr= +ote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px= + 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D= +"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"= +ltr"><div>@Lloyd wrote:</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div cl= +ass=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0= +px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div = +dir=3D"ltr">Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding ke= +ys online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation ke= +ys"[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key'= +;s behalf.<br>Hopefully you've spotted the problem.<br>You can send you= +r participation keys to any malicious party with a nice website (see random= + example [2]) offering you a good return.<br>Damn it's still Proof-of-S= +quareSpace!<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe we are talk= +ing about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want to mine PoW, you need t= +o buy expensive hardware and configure it to work, and wait a long time to = +get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a mining pool, which might u= +se your hashing power for nefarious purposes. Or you might skip the hardwar= +e all together and fall for some "cloud mining" scheme with a pre= +tty website and a high rate of advertised return. So as you can see, Proof-= +of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!</div><div><br></div><div>The PoS equi= +valent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own validator and not o= +utsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have the professional/e= +xpert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur way of participati= +ng. The only difference is, with PoS the professional/expert way is accessi= +ble to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a web connection, which is a much low= +er barrier to entry than PoW.</div></div></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div> + +--000000000000ddb82205c572dff8-- + |