Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:47:24 -0800
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of agustin.cruz@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::12c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::12c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde8598e7n@googlegroups.com>
 <CAC3UE4+kme2N6D_Xx8+VaH1BJnkVEfntPmnLQzaqTQfK4D5QhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDmzYxJzFs=myecyMS6iJwSni1sDwUVq3kMnNGg=dK5kULRJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC3UE4K=T8BmOeLW9s=x+TBauK+M5Z3MaSicD42+rOj_jZ2Ugw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDmzYzUAzoCj3da-3M_ast0_+Qxf3_J1OXWf88B2D-R70pPrg@mail.gmail.com> <f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n@googlegroups.com>
From: Agustin Cruz <agustin.cruz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:42:02 -0300
Message-ID: <CAJDmzYz=52MGGLE0ZWm5tmfLUAZEo2tYQutHb4sMvjKbayOAHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Proposal for Quantum-Resistant Address Migration
 Protocol (QRAMP) BIP
To: Hunter Beast <hunter@surmount.systems>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096c4bf062e817094"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

--00000000000096c4bf062e817094
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Hunter,

I appreciate the work you=E2=80=99re doing on BIP-360 for Anduro. Your poin=
t about
not =E2=80=9Cconfiscating=E2=80=9D old coins and allowing those with quantu=
m capabilities
to free them up is certainly a valid one, and I understand the argument
that any inflationary impact could be transitory.

From my viewpoint, allowing quantum-capable adversaries to reintroduce
dormant coins (e.g., Satoshi=E2=80=99s if those keys are lost) could have
unintended consequences that go beyond transient inflation. It could
fundamentally alter trust in Bitcoin=E2=80=99s fixed supply and disrupt eco=
nomic
assumptions built around the current distribution of coins. While some
might view these dormant coins as =E2=80=9Cfair game,=E2=80=9D their sudden=
 reappearance
could cause lasting market shocks and undermine confidence. The goal of a
proactive migration is to close the door on such a scenario before it
becomes imminent.

I agree that Q-day won=E2=80=99t necessarily be a single, catastrophic mome=
nt. It
will likely be gradual and subtle, giving the network some time to adapt.
That said, one challenge is ensuring we don=E2=80=99t find ourselves in an
emergency scramble the moment a capable quantum machine appears. A forced
or proactive migration is an admittedly strong measure, but it attempts to
address the scenario where a slow, creeping capability becomes a sudden
attack vector once it matures. In that sense, =E2=80=9Crushing=E2=80=9D isn=
=E2=80=99t ideal, but
neither is waiting until the threat is undeniably present.

El mi=C3=A9, 19 de feb de 2025, 1:31=E2=80=AFp. m., Hunter Beast <hunter@su=
rmount.systems>
escribi=C3=B3:

> I don't see why old coins should be confiscated. The better option is to
> let those with quantum computers free up old coins. While this might have
> an inflationary impact on bitcoin's price, to use a turn of phrase, the
> inflation is transitory. Those with low time preference should support
> returning lost coins to circulation.
>
> Also, I don't see the urgency, considering the majority of coins are in
> either P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, and P2WSH addresses. If PQC signatures aren't
> added, such as with BIP-360, there will be some concern around long
> exposure attacks on P2TR coins. For large amounts, it would be smart to
> modify wallets to support broadcasting transactions to private mempool
> services such as Slipstream, to mitigate short exposure attacks. Those wi=
ll
> also be rarer early on since a CRQC capable of a long exposure attack is
> much simpler than one capable of pulling off a short exposure attack
> against a transaction in the mempool.
>
> Bitcoin's Q-day likely won't be sudden and obvious. It will also take tim=
e
> to coordinate a soft fork activation. This shouldn't be rushed.
>
> In the interest of transparency, it's worth mentioning that I'm working o=
n
> a BIP-360 implementation for Anduro. Both Anduro and Slipstream are MARA
> services.
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 9:01:51=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Agustin Cruz wr=
ote:
>
>> Hi Dustin:
>>
>> I understand that the proposal is an extraordinary ask=E2=80=94it would =
indeed
>> void a non-trivial part of the coin supply if users do not migrate in ti=
me,
>> and under normal circumstances, many would argue that unused P2PKH funds
>> are safe from a quantum adversary. However, the intent here is to be
>> proactive rather than reactive.
>>
>> The concern isn=E2=80=99t solely about funds in active wallets. Consider=
 that if
>> we don=E2=80=99t implement a proactive migration, any Bitcoin in lost
>> wallets=E2=80=94including, hypothetically, Satoshi=E2=80=99s if he is no=
t alive=E2=80=94will remain
>> vulnerable. In the event of a quantum breakthrough, those coins could be
>> hacked and put back into circulation. Such an outcome would not only
>> disrupt the balance of supply but could also undermine the trust and
>> security that Bitcoin has built over decades. In short, the consequences=
 of
>> a reactive measure in a quantum emergency could be far more catastrophic=
.
>>
>> While I agree that a forced migration during an active quantum attack
>> scenario might be more acceptable (since funds would likely be considere=
d
>> lost anyway), waiting until such an emergency arises leaves us with litt=
le
>> margin for error. By enforcing a migration now, we create a window for t=
he
>> entire community to transition safely=E2=80=94assuming we set the deadli=
ne
>> generously and provide ample notifications, auto-migration tools, and, i=
f
>> necessary, emergency extensions.
>>
>> El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:48=E2=80=AFp. m., Dustin Ray <dustinvo...@g=
mail.com>
>> escribi=C3=B3:
>>
>>> I think youre going to have a tough time getting consensus on this
>>> proposal. It is an extraordinary ask of the community to instill a
>>> change that will essentially void out a non-trivial part of the coin
>>> supply, especially when funds behind unused P2PKH addresses are at
>>> this point considered safe from a quantum adversary.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, where parts of this proposal make sense is in a quantum
>>> emergency in which an adversary is actively extracting private keys
>>> from known public keys and a transition must be made quickly and
>>> decisively. In that case, we might as well consider funds to be lost
>>> anyways. In any other scenario prior to this hypothetical emergency
>>> however, I have serious doubts that the community is going to consent
>>> to this proposal as it stands.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:37=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz <agusti...@gmail.c=
om>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Dustin
>>> >
>>> > To clarify, the intent behind making legacy funds unspendable after a
>>> certain block height is indeed a hard security measure=E2=80=94designed=
 to mitigate
>>> the potentially catastrophic risk posed by quantum attacks on ECDSA. Th=
e
>>> idea is to force a proactive migration of funds to quantum-resistant
>>> addresses before quantum computers become capable of compromising the
>>> current cryptography.
>>> >
>>> > The migration window is intended to be sufficiently long (determined
>>> by both block height and community input) to provide ample time for use=
rs
>>> and service providers to transition.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:15=E2=80=AFp. m., Dustin Ray <
>>> dustinvo...@gmail.com> escribi=C3=B3:
>>> >>
>>> >> Right off the bat I notice you are proposing that legacy funds becom=
e
>>> unspendable after a certain block height which immediately raises serio=
us
>>> problems. A migration to quantum hard addresses in this manner would ca=
use
>>> serious financial damage to anyone holding legacy funds, if I understan=
d
>>> your proposal correctly.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz <agusti...@gmai=
l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear Bitcoin Developers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am writing to share my proposal for a new Bitcoin Improvement
>>> Proposal (BIP) titled Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRA=
MP).
>>> The goal of this proposal is to safeguard Bitcoin against potential fut=
ure
>>> quantum attacks by enforcing a mandatory migration period for funds hel=
d in
>>> legacy Bitcoin addresses (secured by ECDSA) to quantum-resistant addres=
ses.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The proposal outlines:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Reducing Vulnerabilities: Transitioning funds to quantum-resistant
>>> schemes preemptively to eliminate the risk posed by quantum attacks on
>>> exposed public keys.
>>> >>> Enforcing Timelines: A hard migration deadline that forces timely
>>> action, rather than relying on a gradual, voluntary migration that migh=
t
>>> leave many users at risk.
>>> >>> Balancing Risks: Weighing the non-trivial risk of funds being
>>> permanently locked against the potential catastrophic impact of a quant=
um
>>> attack on Bitcoin=E2=80=99s security.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Additionally, the proposal addresses common criticisms such as the
>>> risk of permanent fund loss, uncertain quantum timelines, and the poten=
tial
>>> for chain splits. It also details backwards compatibility measures,
>>> comprehensive security considerations, an extensive suite of test cases=
,
>>> and a reference implementation plan that includes script interpreter
>>> changes, wallet software updates, and network monitoring tools.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> For your convenience, I have published the full proposal on my
>>> GitHub repository. You can review it at the following link:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP) Proposal on
>>> GitHub
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I welcome your feedback and suggestions and look forward to engagin=
g
>>> in a constructive discussion on how best to enhance the security and
>>> resilience of the Bitcoin network in the quantum computing era.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thank you for your time and consideration.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Agustin Cruz
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >>> To view this discussion visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c=
5bde8598e7n%40googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310=
ea242194n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-331=
0ea242194n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter>
> .
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
CAJDmzYz%3D52MGGLE0ZWm5tmfLUAZEo2tYQutHb4sMvjKbayOAHg%40mail.gmail.com.

--00000000000096c4bf062e817094
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><p dir=3D"ltr">Hi Hunter,</p><p dir=3D"ltr">I appreciate =
the work you=E2=80=99re doing on BIP-360 for Anduro. Your point about not =
=E2=80=9Cconfiscating=E2=80=9D old coins and allowing those with quantum ca=
pabilities to free them up is certainly a valid one, and I understand the a=
rgument that any inflationary impact could be transitory.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">From my viewpoint, allowing quantum-capable adversaries to r=
eintroduce dormant coins (e.g., Satoshi=E2=80=99s if those keys are lost) c=
ould have unintended consequences that go beyond transient inflation. It co=
uld fundamentally alter trust in Bitcoin=E2=80=99s fixed supply and disrupt=
 economic assumptions built around the current distribution of coins. While=
 some might view these dormant coins as =E2=80=9Cfair game,=E2=80=9D their =
sudden reappearance could cause lasting market shocks and undermine confide=
nce. The goal of a proactive migration is to close the door on such a scena=
rio before it becomes imminent.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">I agree that Q-day won=E2=
=80=99t necessarily be a single, catastrophic moment. It will likely be gra=
dual and subtle, giving the network some time to adapt. That said, one chal=
lenge is ensuring we don=E2=80=99t find ourselves in an emergency scramble =
the moment a capable quantum machine appears. A forced or proactive migrati=
on is an admittedly strong measure, but it attempts to address the scenario=
 where a slow, creeping capability becomes a sudden attack vector once it m=
atures. In that sense, =E2=80=9Crushing=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t ideal, but n=
either is waiting until the threat is undeniably present.</p></div><br><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmai=
l_attr">El mi=C3=A9, 19 de feb de 2025, 1:31=E2=80=AFp.=C2=A0m., Hunter Bea=
st &lt;hunter@surmount.systems&gt; escribi=C3=B3:<br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">I don&#39;t see why old coins should be confiscated. The bet=
ter option is to let those with quantum computers free up old coins. While =
this might have an inflationary impact on bitcoin&#39;s price, to use a tur=
n of phrase, the inflation is transitory. Those with low time preference sh=
ould support returning lost coins to circulation.<div><br></div><div>Also, =
I don&#39;t see the urgency, considering the majority of coins are in eithe=
r P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, and P2WSH addresses. If PQC signatures aren&#39;t ad=
ded, such as with BIP-360, there will be some concern around long exposure =
attacks on P2TR coins. For large amounts, it would be smart to modify walle=
ts to support broadcasting transactions to private mempool services such as=
 Slipstream, to mitigate short exposure attacks. Those will also be rarer e=
arly on since a CRQC capable of a long exposure attack is much simpler than=
 one capable of pulling off a short exposure attack against a transaction i=
n the mempool.</div><div><br></div><div>Bitcoin&#39;s Q-day likely won&#39;=
t be sudden and obvious. It will also take time to coordinate a soft fork a=
ctivation. This shouldn&#39;t be rushed.</div><div><br></div><div>In the in=
terest of transparency, it&#39;s worth mentioning that I&#39;m working on a=
 BIP-360 implementation for Anduro. Both Anduro and Slipstream are MARA ser=
vices.</div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" cla=
ss=3D"gmail_attr">On Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 9:01:51=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7=
 Agustin Cruz wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><=
div dir=3D"auto"><p dir=3D"ltr">Hi Dustin:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I understand that the proposal is an extraordinary ask=E2=80=
=94it would indeed void a non-trivial part of the coin supply if users do n=
ot migrate in time, and under normal circumstances, many would argue that u=
nused P2PKH funds are safe from a quantum adversary. However, the intent he=
re is to be proactive rather than reactive.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The concern isn=E2=80=99t solely about funds in active walle=
ts. Consider that if we don=E2=80=99t implement a proactive migration, any =
Bitcoin in lost wallets=E2=80=94including, hypothetically, Satoshi=E2=80=99=
s if he is not alive=E2=80=94will remain vulnerable. In the event of a quan=
tum breakthrough, those coins could be hacked and put back into circulation=
. Such an outcome would not only disrupt the balance of supply but could al=
so undermine the trust and security that Bitcoin has built over decades. In=
 short, the consequences of a reactive measure in a quantum emergency could=
 be far more catastrophic.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">While I agree that a forced migration during an active quant=
um attack scenario might be more acceptable (since funds would likely be co=
nsidered lost anyway), waiting until such an emergency arises leaves us wit=
h little margin for error. By enforcing a migration now, we create a window=
 for the entire community to transition safely=E2=80=94assuming we set the =
deadline generously and provide ample notifications, auto-migration tools, =
and, if necessary, emergency extensions.</p></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:48=
=E2=80=AFp.=C2=A0m., Dustin Ray &lt;<a rel=3D"nofollow noreferrer">dustinvo=
...@gmail.com</a>&gt; escribi=C3=B3:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
">I think youre going to have a tough time getting consensus on this<br>
proposal. It is an extraordinary ask of the community to instill a<br>
change that will essentially void out a non-trivial part of the coin<br>
supply, especially when funds behind unused P2PKH addresses are at<br>
this point considered safe from a quantum adversary.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, where parts of this proposal make sense is in a quantum<br>
emergency in which an adversary is actively extracting private keys<br>
from known public keys and a transition must be made quickly and<br>
decisively. In that case, we might as well consider funds to be lost<br>
anyways. In any other scenario prior to this hypothetical emergency<br>
however, I have serious doubts that the community is going to consent<br>
to this proposal as it stands.<br>
<br>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:37=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferr=
er nofollow noreferrer">agusti...@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi Dustin<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; To clarify, the intent behind making legacy funds unspendable after a =
certain block height is indeed a hard security measure=E2=80=94designed to =
mitigate the potentially catastrophic risk posed by quantum attacks on ECDS=
A. The idea is to force a proactive migration of funds to quantum-resistant=
 addresses before quantum computers become capable of compromising the curr=
ent cryptography.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The migration window is intended to be sufficiently long (determined b=
y both block height and community input) to provide ample time for users an=
d service providers to transition.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:15=E2=80=AFp. m., Dustin Ray &lt;<a rel=
=3D"noreferrer nofollow noreferrer">dustinvo...@gmail.com</a>&gt; escribi=
=C3=B3:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Right off the bat I notice you are proposing that legacy funds bec=
ome unspendable after a certain block height which immediately raises serio=
us problems. A migration to quantum hard addresses in this manner would cau=
se serious financial damage to anyone holding legacy funds, if I understand=
 your proposal correctly.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz &lt;<a rel=3D=
"noreferrer nofollow noreferrer">agusti...@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Dear Bitcoin Developers,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; I am writing to share my proposal for a new Bitcoin Improvemen=
t Proposal (BIP) titled Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP=
). The goal of this proposal is to safeguard Bitcoin against potential futu=
re quantum attacks by enforcing a mandatory migration period for funds held=
 in legacy Bitcoin addresses (secured by ECDSA) to quantum-resistant addres=
ses.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; The proposal outlines:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Reducing Vulnerabilities: Transitioning funds to quantum-resis=
tant schemes preemptively to eliminate the risk posed by quantum attacks on=
 exposed public keys.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Enforcing Timelines: A hard migration deadline that forces tim=
ely action, rather than relying on a gradual, voluntary migration that migh=
t leave many users at risk.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Balancing Risks: Weighing the non-trivial risk of funds being =
permanently locked against the potential catastrophic impact of a quantum a=
ttack on Bitcoin=E2=80=99s security.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Additionally, the proposal addresses common criticisms such as=
 the risk of permanent fund loss, uncertain quantum timelines, and the pote=
ntial for chain splits. It also details backwards compatibility measures, c=
omprehensive security considerations, an extensive suite of test cases, and=
 a reference implementation plan that includes script interpreter changes, =
wallet software updates, and network monitoring tools.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; For your convenience, I have published the full proposal on my=
 GitHub repository. You can review it at the following link:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP) Proposal =
on GitHub<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; I welcome your feedback and suggestions and look forward to en=
gaging in a constructive discussion on how best to enhance the security and=
 resilience of the Bitcoin network in the quantum computing era.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Thank you for your time and consideration.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Agustin Cruz<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go=
ogle Groups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from =
it, send an email to <a rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow noreferrer">bitcoindev+.=
..@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google=
.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde8598e7n%40googlegroup=
s.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer nofollow noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">=
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde=
8598e7n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=
=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">h=
ttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea2=
42194n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CAJDmzYz%3D52MGGLE0ZWm5tmfLUAZEo2tYQutHb4sMvjKbayOAHg%40mail.gma=
il.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/=
msgid/bitcoindev/CAJDmzYz%3D52MGGLE0ZWm5tmfLUAZEo2tYQutHb4sMvjKbayOAHg%40ma=
il.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--00000000000096c4bf062e817094--