Delivery-date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:47:02 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of criley@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c68c6554f56n@googlegroups.com>
 <CAAS2fgRFP+BJUZR7h01=7=qamD5qEW6OYJikTMR=5RkxTCEMZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <de4dae19-86f4-4d7a-a895-b48664babbfcn@googlegroups.com> <CAAS2fgRABqRe1j6xzW0uhVrDiQnL6x1X6ALzfsJ7w4GztWVeNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDT2SRyVY4rh=HegG+kk5nnDf6qzYuRkUyxCC8iE-ydsh63ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS2fgSmiKhmQGAEo2eSQJmen-4kT1vD7dY8UESV4dQrjXau7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOSz24TJU-4Q76MtzL+oYYFpXQvrOay5XtdrR0DxVBUAFz=5og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS2fgRGCbNNxGHbSy1Ej3Kr9EnYDa5TYrVTCsfFsMnCbjYcfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOSz24SdZeV=1PwDeXfoMgY7QbcfYkLysnGdqSWVrnRzqvHSOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgSXX5_TU86r=QOQAvg84tpRa7o9ha5=En3tPmTUBrrqhw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSXX5_TU86r=QOQAvg84tpRa7o9ha5=En3tPmTUBrrqhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Riley <criley@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 22:06:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL5BAw2E2nupsgrZE6z2T2Fd4VWnF-NvPOZXXaOtbOLHSTWi-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] [BIP Proposal] Mempool Validation and Relay Policies
 via User-Defined Scripts
To: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Cc: Aiden McClelland <me@drbonez.dev>, yes_please <caucasianjazz12@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e4be36063faabc14"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

--000000000000e4be36063faabc14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One concern is that even if filter scripts are local and opt-in initially,
social or economic pressure will push them toward "standardization"=E2=80=
=94and
from there toward implicit coercion=E2=80=94so the risk of soft censorship
increases over time. If relay policies start drifting, the mempool ceases
to reflect miner behavior and fragments into incompatible local views,
undermining its role as a shared substrate. Instead of decentralizing
control, filter modules may simply externalize it: those who author
=E2=80=9Cpopular=E2=80=9D (perhaps through demagoguery) filters gain outsiz=
ed influence
over what the rest see. The path to robustness is not more policy layers,
but maintaining a minimal, common relay system.

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 6:29=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> w=
rote:

> "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."
>
> Black and white thinking is not very helpful here particularly because th=
e
> goals of pro-filtering and anti-censorship aren't exact opposites.
>
> A widely censored world would greatly degrade the value of
> Bitcoin, particularly if the censors managed to enlist significant miners=
.
> It would be routed around at great cost, and with much less freedom
> provided for the world.  But just like people continue to buy racy
> magazines or other completely lawful targets of operation chokepoint with
> USD, people would still route around Bitcoin censorship.   But why even u=
se
> Bitcoin if it's in a similar space of your transactions being capriciousl=
y
> blocks, your funds frozen, etc. as exists with legacy infrastructure?
>
> But the irony is that the traffic that people most desperately want to
> stop would be among the least impeded-- already today the spam traffic
> exists at all because it's well funded (or really existed a year ago, we
> are long past the huge spam floods-- they were depleted by costs and
> fizzled as predicted-- and Ocean Mining is fighting yesterday's battle. B=
ut
> what exists exists because its well funded).  Meanwhile joe blow sending
> funds p2p to friends or family in far off places doesn't have the funds o=
r
> technical acumen to deal with censorship potentially targeting him, his
> activities, or his payees.  The effect of censorship is basically to
> require people to learn how to be money launderers to freely transact, an=
d
> those who don't suffer.
>
> The case is even stronger re: the recently filtering arguments because
> unlike some consensus rule anyone can just mine a block (rent hashpower,
> you don't have to own it) or even more so the stuff like op_return limits
> have long been bypassed by major miners.  So the policy restriction was
> already not working.   So in some sense there are arguments getting
> conflated:  The op_return policy limit has already failed.  So when peopl=
e
> point out that it doesn't work it's just a statement of fact rather than
> speculation.  But basically the 'bad' traffic has a lot easier time than
> more innocent traffic, which is part of why filters can be both ineffecti=
ve
> and dangerous.  It's also the case that existing filter efforts are not
> backed by civil litigation or state mandates, but building infrastructure
> creates an obvious stepping stone to that (in part because of the
> insufficient effectiveness of filtering)-- it's just a bad road that will
> almost inevitably lead to more escalations.   Bitcoin is just better of
> adopting the position that other people's transactions aren't our busines=
s,
> even if they're stupid or drive fees up a bit for some periods and create
> annoyances, because the alternative is easily much worse.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 9:26=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland <me@drbonez.dev>=
 wrote:
>
>> >I have no idea what you're referring to there.
>>
>> It's something I inferred from your primary argument that seems to be
>> that user-configurable filters are bad because they would cause censorsh=
ip.
>> But it also sounds like you're saying such filters are completely
>> ineffective at any sort of censorship at all. I don't really understand =
how
>> these two viewpoints can coexist. What am I missing here?
>>
>> Best,
>> *Aiden McClelland*
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 3:14=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>
>>> I am not a core developer. I have not been for some eight years now.
>>>
>>> > that you yourself are worried they will reach the 80% needed
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're referring to there.  If lots of people run
>>> nodes that screw up propagation they'll be routed around.  I developed =
the
>>> technical concepts required to get nearly 100% tx coverage even if almo=
st
>>> all nodes are blocking them quite a few years ago (
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.10518 ), but deployment of the
>>> implementation has gone slow due to other factors (you know, such as th=
e
>>> most experienced developers being hit with billions of dollars in lawsu=
its
>>> as a cost for their support of Bitcoin)... I expect if censoring actual=
ly
>>> becomes widespread that technological improvements which further moot i=
t
>>> will be developed.
>>>
>>> These are just vulnerabilities that should be closed anyways-- after al=
l
>>> anyone at any time can just spin up any number of "nodes" that behave i=
n
>>> arbitrary ways, at ant time.  It's been a lower priority because there =
are
>>> other countermeasures (addnode-a-friend, manually setbanning bad peers,
>>> etc.) and aforementione distractions.
>>>
>>> > censorship due to widespread use of transaction filters is a bad thin=
g
>>> (I'm not really taking a stance on that right now).
>>>
>>> I would point you to the history of discussion on Bitcoin starting back
>>> with Satoshi's earliest announcements, and perhaps to help you understa=
nd
>>> that if you want that what you want isn't bitcoin.  If after considerat=
ion
>>> you don't think censorship wouldn't be very bad, then really you and I =
have
>>> nothing further to discuss.
>>>
>>> > are you willing to work with and compromise with people who are
>>> looking for a solution like this? Or are you going to force them to aba=
ndon
>>> the Core project entirely
>>>
>>> I don't really think there is any space to compromise with people who
>>> think it's okay to add censorship to Bitcoin-- I mean sure whatever exa=
ct
>>> relay policy there is there is plenty of tradeoffs but from the start o=
f
>>> this new filter debate the filter proponents have immediately come out =
with
>>> vile insults accusing developers of promoting child sexual abuse and
>>> shitcoins and what not----  that isn't some attempt to navigate a
>>> technical/political trademark, it's an effort to villify and destory th=
e
>>> opposition.   And unambiguously so as luke has said outright that his g=
oal
>>> is to destroy Bitcoin Core.  So what's the compromise there?
>>>
>>> > Or even worse still, felt compelled to coordinate a UASF to block
>>> these transactions entirely?
>>>
>>> I very much think people should do that-- they should actually make som=
e
>>> consensus rules for their filters to fork off and we can see what the
>>> market thinks.  -- And also even if the market prefers censored Bitcoin=
,
>>> that's also fine with me, in the sense in my view Bitcoin was created t=
o be
>>> money as largely free from human judgement as possible.  When it was
>>> created most of the world was doing something else and didn't know they
>>> needed freedom money.  If it's still the case that most of the world
>>> doesn't want freedom money that would be no shock. They should be free =
to
>>> have what they want and people who want freedom money should be free to
>>> have what they want.  I got into bitcoin before it was worth practicall=
y
>>> anything because of the freedom it provides, and I think that's paramou=
nt.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should consider why they *don't* do that?  I'd say it's
>>> because (1) it won't work, and (2) it's not actually what the world wan=
ts--
>>> an outspoken influence campaign is not necessarily all that reflective =
of
>>> much of anything.  Particularly given how inaccurate and emotionally
>>> pandering the filter advocacy has been.   But, hey, I've been wrong
>>> before.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 8:51=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland <me@drbonez.de=
v> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Let me assume for a minute, for the sake of argument, that I agree tha=
t
>>>> transaction censorship due to widespread use of transaction filters is=
 a
>>>> bad thing (I'm not really taking a stance on that right now). It is an
>>>> irrefutable fact that a very large portion of the user base wants to f=
ilter
>>>> transactions. So many so, that you yourself are worried they will reac=
h the
>>>> 80% needed to prevent certain types of transactions from propogating.
>>>> Wouldn't it then be *worse* if these 80% of users went and ran an
>>>> alternative implementation, most likely written by it's most radical
>>>> supporters? Or even worse still, felt compelled to coordinate a UASF t=
o
>>>> block these transactions entirely?
>>>>
>>>> I at no point intended to insinuate that you or any other core
>>>> contributer be compelled to implement a proposal like this. It's up to=
 its
>>>> supporters to do so. The real question is, are you willing to work wit=
h and
>>>> compromise with people who are looking for a solution like this? Or ar=
e you
>>>> going to force them to abandon the Core project entirely?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> *Aiden McClelland*
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 2:03=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > 1) Allowing node
>>>>>
>>>>> Who said anything about allowing?  Everyone is allowed to do whatever
>>>>> they want.  Drill a hole in your head if you like, not my concern.  N=
one of
>>>>> this thread is about what people are allowed to do-- that's off the t=
able.
>>>>> The design and licensing of Bitcoin is such that no one gets to stop =
anyone
>>>>> else from what they want to do anyways (which is, in fact, a big part=
 of
>>>>> the issue here).   To think otherwise is to be stuck in a kind of ser=
f
>>>>> thinking where you can only do what other people allow you to do.  Th=
at has
>>>>> never been what Bitcoin was about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather, the question is should people who care about Bitcoin spend
>>>>> their time and money developing infrastructure that would be useful, =
even
>>>>> primarily useful, for censorship.  I say no.  Especially because any =
time
>>>>> spent on it is time away from anti-censorship pro-privacy tools and b=
ecause
>>>>> the effort spent doing so would undermine anti-censorship and pro-pri=
vacy
>>>>> efforts because they would inevitably moot the efforts expected getti=
ng
>>>>> into peoples business and filtering their transactions.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't have to agree, and you're free to do your own thing just as
>>>>> I'm free to say that I think it's a bad direction.  From the very beg=
inning
>>>>> Bitcoin has stood against the freedom to transact being overridden by
>>>>> some admin based on their judgment call weighing principles against o=
ther
>>>>> concerns, or at the behest of their superiors.  So many Bitcoiner wil=
l
>>>>> stand against, route around, and do what they can do to make ineffect=
ual
>>>>> the blocking of consensual transactions.  It might not seem as many a=
t the
>>>>> moment, but the pro-privacy and anti-censorship 'side' doesn't have a=
 paid
>>>>> PR and influence campaign,  but it also doesn't matter so much becaus=
e
>>>>> Bitcoin takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to sp=
read
>>>>> and hard to stifel and it doesn't that that huge an effort to route a=
round
>>>>> censorship efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are elements of anti-censorship in Bitcoin that have been so fa=
r
>>>>> underdeveloped.  It's unfortunate that their further development migh=
t be
>>>>> forced at a time when efforts are needed on other areas.  But perhaps=
 they
>>>>> wouldn't get done without a concrete motivation. Such is life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 9:21=E2=80=AFAM yes_please <caucasianjazz12@g=
mail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Greg, could you please elaborate further on your ideas? Some
>>>>>> are not exactly clear:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Allowing node runners to configure their node as they please and
>>>>>> refuse to relay some txs is considered authoritarian, censorship, an=
d an
>>>>>> attempt to regulate third parties conduct. On the other hand, forcin=
g nodes
>>>>>> to merge towards a single shared configuration (by preventing them t=
o block
>>>>>> txs) is not considered authoritarian because this imposition does no=
t
>>>>>> discriminate towards any txs and is thus non-authoritarian? Did I ge=
t the
>>>>>> reasoning correctly here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) If the aim is to have a homogenous mempool state and to model
>>>>>> what will get mined, shouldn=E2=80=99t we reach this state through d=
istributed
>>>>>> independent nodes who decide independently on what they prefer this
>>>>>> homogenous state to be? If we don=E2=80=99t reach this state through=
 this
>>>>>> distributed/independent mechanism, then how are we to reach this sta=
te? Who
>>>>>> gets to decide and steer the direction so that we all converge towar=
ds this
>>>>>> homogenous state?  One of the strongest aspects of bitcoin is the fa=
ct that
>>>>>> no single party can force a change/direction, and the network has to
>>>>>> somehow reach a shared agreement through independent decision makers=
 who
>>>>>> act in what manner they think is best. The proposed BIP seems to be =
aligned
>>>>>> with such a principle, I fail to see any authoritarian aspect here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) I share your sentiment and the aim to have a homogenous mempool
>>>>>> state, but I am skeptical of the manner in which we are to achieve t=
his
>>>>>> according to the ideas you have here expressed (namely not through a
>>>>>> distributed independent organic manner)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Respectfully, yes_please
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 12:50=E2=80=AFAM Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmai=
l.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So that when the "consistent state" changes as a result of some
>>>>>>> issue you can update configs instead of having to update software--=
 which
>>>>>>> has considerable more costs and risks, especially if you're carryin=
g local
>>>>>>> customizations as many miners do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 8:47=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland <me@drbone=
z.dev>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If mempool consistency across the network is all that is important=
,
>>>>>>>> why allow any configuration of mempool relay policies at all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 24, 2025 at 12:47:28=E2=80=AFPM UTC-6 Greg=
 Maxwell
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This appears to substantially misunderstands the purpose of the
>>>>>>>>> mempool broadly in the network-- it's purpose is to model what wi=
ll get
>>>>>>>>> mined.  If you're not doing that you might as well set blocks onl=
y.
>>>>>>>>> Significant discrepancies are harmful to the system and promote
>>>>>>>>> centralization and fail to achieve a useful purpose in any case. =
 What
>>>>>>>>> marginal benefits might be provided do not justify building and d=
eploying
>>>>>>>>> the technological infrastructure for massive censorship.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think this is important, I advise you to select another
>>>>>>>>> cryptocurrency which is compatible with such authoritarian leanin=
gs.  --
>>>>>>>>> though I am unsure if any exist since it is such a transparently =
pointless
>>>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 6:30=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland <m...@dr=
bonez.dev>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to share for discussion a draft BIP to allow for a
>>>>>>>>>> modular mempool/relay policy:
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1985
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it could potentially reduce conflict within the communit=
y
>>>>>>>>>> around relay policy, as an alternative to running lots of differ=
ent node
>>>>>>>>>> implementations/forks when there are disagreements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am working on a reference implementation using Bellard's
>>>>>>>>>> QuickJS, but it has been almost a decade since I've written C++,=
 so it's
>>>>>>>>>> slow going and I'm sure doesn't follow best-practices. Once it's=
 working,
>>>>>>>>>> it can be cleaned up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Aiden McClelland
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 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/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-=
80f0-6c68c6554f56n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9=
-80f0-6c68c6554f56n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfoot=
er>
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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/de4dae19-86f4-4d7a-a8=
95-b48664babbfcn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/de4dae19-86f4-4d7a-a=
895-b48664babbfcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter=
>
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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/CAAS2fgRABqRe1j6xzW0uh=
VrDiQnL6x1X6ALzfsJ7w4GztWVeNA%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRABqRe1j6xzW0u=
hVrDiQnL6x1X6ALzfsJ7w4GztWVeNA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_sour=
ce=3Dfooter>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
> 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/CAAS2fgSXX5_TU86r%3DQOQAvg84=
tpRa7o9ha5%3DEn3tPmTUBrrqhw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSXX5_TU86r%3DQOQAvg8=
4tpRa7o9ha5%3DEn3tPmTUBrrqhw%40mail.gmail.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/=
CAL5BAw2E2nupsgrZE6z2T2Fd4VWnF-NvPOZXXaOtbOLHSTWi-g%40mail.gmail.com.

--000000000000e4be36063faabc14
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">One concern is that even if filter scripts are local and o=
pt-in initially, social or economic pressure will push them toward &quot;st=
andardization&quot;=E2=80=94and from there toward implicit coercion=E2=80=
=94so the risk of soft censorship increases over time. If relay policies st=
art drifting, the mempool ceases to reflect miner behavior and fragments in=
to incompatible local views, undermining its role as a shared substrate. In=
stead of decentralizing control, filter modules may simply externalize it: =
those who author =E2=80=9Cpopular=E2=80=9D (perhaps through demagoguery) fi=
lters gain outsized influence over what the rest see. The path to robustnes=
s is not more policy layers, but maintaining a minimal, common relay system=
.<div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D=
"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 6:29=E2=80=AFPM Greg Max=
well &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb=
(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&quot;There are level=
s of survival we are prepared to accept.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>Bla=
ck and white thinking is not very helpful=C2=A0here particularly because th=
e goals of pro-filtering and anti-censorship aren&#39;t exact opposites.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>A widely censored world would greatly degrade the va=
lue of Bitcoin,=C2=A0particularly if the censors managed to enlist signific=
ant miners.=C2=A0 It would be routed around at great cost, and with much le=
ss freedom provided for the world.=C2=A0 But just like people continue to b=
uy racy magazines or other completely lawful targets of operation chokepoin=
t=C2=A0with USD, people would still route around Bitcoin censorship.=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0But why even use Bitcoin if it&#39;s in a similar space of your trans=
actions being capriciously blocks, your funds frozen, etc. as exists with l=
egacy infrastructure?</div><div><br></div><div>But the irony is that the tr=
affic that people most desperately want to stop would be among the least im=
peded-- already today the spam traffic exists at all because it&#39;s well =
funded (or really existed a year ago, we are long past the huge spam floods=
-- they were depleted by costs and fizzled as predicted--=C2=A0and Ocean Mi=
ning is fighting yesterday&#39;s battle. But what exists exists because its=
 well funded).=C2=A0 Meanwhile joe blow sending funds p2p to friends or fam=
ily in far off places doesn&#39;t have the funds or technical acumen=C2=A0t=
o deal with censorship potentially targeting him, his activities, or his pa=
yees.=C2=A0 The effect of censorship is basically to require people to lear=
n how to be money launderers to freely transact, and those who don&#39;t su=
ffer.</div><div><br></div><div>The case is even stronger re: the recently f=
iltering arguments because unlike some consensus rule anyone can just mine =
a block (rent hashpower, you don&#39;t have to own it) or even more so the =
stuff like op_return limits have long been bypassed by major miners.=C2=A0 =
So the policy restriction was already not working.=C2=A0 =C2=A0So in some s=
ense there are arguments getting conflated:=C2=A0 The op_return policy limi=
t has already failed.=C2=A0 So when people point out that it doesn&#39;t wo=
rk it&#39;s just a statement of fact rather than speculation.=C2=A0 But bas=
ically the &#39;bad&#39; traffic has a lot easier time than more innocent t=
raffic, which is part of why filters can be both ineffective and dangerous.=
=C2=A0 It&#39;s also the case that existing filter efforts are not backed b=
y civil litigation or state mandates, but building infrastructure creates a=
n obvious stepping stone to that (in part because of the insufficient effec=
tiveness of filtering)-- it&#39;s just a bad road that will almost inevitab=
ly lead to more escalations.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Bitcoin is just better of adopting=
 the position that other people&#39;s transactions aren&#39;t our business,=
 even if they&#39;re stupid or drive fees up a bit for some periods and cre=
ate annoyances, because the alternative is easily much worse.</div><div><br=
></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0=C2=A0</div>=
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 9:26=
=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:me@drbonez.dev" target=
=3D"_blank">me@drbonez.dev</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-le=
ft-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"auto"><div>&gt;I have no idea what you&#39;re referring to there.</div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It&#39;s something I inferre=
d from your primary argument that seems to be that user-configurable filter=
s are bad because they would cause censorship. But it also sounds like you&=
#39;re saying such filters are completely ineffective at any sort of censor=
ship at all. I don&#39;t really understand how these two viewpoints can coe=
xist. What am I missing here?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">Best,</div><div><font face=3D"courier new, monospace"><b>Aiden McClel=
land</b></font></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 3:14=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell &lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com=
</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left=
-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I am not a =
core developer. I have not been for some eight years now.=C2=A0 =C2=A0</div=
><div><br></div><div>&gt;=C2=A0that you yourself are worried they will reac=
h the 80% needed</div><div><br></div><div>I have no idea what you&#39;re re=
ferring to there.=C2=A0 If lots of people run nodes that screw up propagati=
on they&#39;ll be routed around.=C2=A0 I developed the technical concepts r=
equired to get nearly 100% tx coverage even if almost all nodes are blockin=
g them quite a few years ago ( <a href=3D"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.10518"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.10518</a> =
), but deployment of the implementation has gone slow due to other factors =
(you know, such as the most experienced=C2=A0developers being hit with bill=
ions of dollars in lawsuits as a cost for their support of Bitcoin)... I ex=
pect if censoring actually becomes widespread that technological improvemen=
ts which further moot it will be developed.</div><div><br></div><div>These =
are just vulnerabilities that should be closed anyways-- after all anyone a=
t any time can just spin up any number of &quot;nodes&quot; that behave in =
arbitrary=C2=A0ways, at ant time.=C2=A0 It&#39;s been a lower priority beca=
use there are other countermeasures (addnode-a-friend, manually setbanning=
=C2=A0bad peers, etc.) and aforementione distractions.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>&gt;=C2=A0censorship due to widespread use of transaction filters is a=
 bad thing (I&#39;m not really taking a stance on that right now).</div><di=
v><br></div><div>I would point you to the history of discussion on Bitcoin =
starting back with Satoshi&#39;s earliest announcements, and perhaps to hel=
p you understand that if you want that what you want isn&#39;t bitcoin.=C2=
=A0 If after consideration you don&#39;t think censorship wouldn&#39;t be v=
ery bad, then really you and I have nothing further to discuss.</div><div><=
br></div><div>&gt;=C2=A0are you willing to work with and compromise with pe=
ople who are looking=20
for a solution like this? Or are you going to force them to abandon the=20
Core project entirely</div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t really think the=
re is any space to compromise with people who think it&#39;s okay to add ce=
nsorship to Bitcoin-- I mean sure whatever exact relay policy there is ther=
e is plenty of tradeoffs but from the start of this new filter debate the f=
ilter proponents have immediately come out with vile insults accusing devel=
opers of promoting child sexual abuse and shitcoins and what not----=C2=A0 =
that isn&#39;t some attempt to navigate a technical/political trademark, it=
&#39;s an effort to villify and destory the opposition.=C2=A0 =C2=A0And una=
mbiguously=C2=A0so as luke has said outright that his goal is to destroy Bi=
tcoin Core.=C2=A0 So what&#39;s the compromise there?=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div=
><br></div><div>&gt;=C2=A0Or even worse still, felt compelled to coordinate=
 a UASF to block these transactions entirely?</div><div><br></div><div>I ve=
ry much think people should do that-- they should actually make some consen=
sus rules for their filters to fork off and we can see what the market thin=
ks.=C2=A0 -- And also even if the market prefers censored Bitcoin, that&#39=
;s also fine with me, in the sense in my view Bitcoin was created to be mon=
ey as largely free from human judgement as possible.=C2=A0 When it was crea=
ted most of the world was doing something else and didn&#39;t know they nee=
ded freedom money.=C2=A0 If it&#39;s still the case that most of the world =
doesn&#39;t want freedom money that would be no shock. They should be free =
to have what they want and people who want freedom money should be free to =
have what they want.=C2=A0 I got into bitcoin before it was worth practical=
ly anything because of the freedom it provides, and I think that&#39;s para=
mount.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps you should consider why they *don&#=
39;t* do that?=C2=A0 I&#39;d say it&#39;s because (1) it won&#39;t work, an=
d (2) it&#39;s not actually what the world wants-- an outspoken influence c=
ampaign is not necessarily all that reflective of much of anything.=C2=A0 P=
articularly given how inaccurate and emotionally pandering the filter advoc=
acy has been.=C2=A0 =C2=A0But, hey, I&#39;ve been wrong before.=C2=A0=C2=A0=
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 8:51=E2=80=AFPM=
 Aiden McClelland &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:me@drbonez.dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" =
target=3D"_blank">me@drbonez.dev</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=
<div dir=3D"auto"><div>Greg,=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">Let me assume for a minute, for the sake of argument, that I agr=
ee that transaction censorship due to widespread use of transaction filters=
 is a bad thing (I&#39;m not really taking a stance on that right now). It =
is an irrefutable fact that a very large portion of the user base wants to =
filter transactions. So many so, that you yourself are worried they will re=
ach the 80% needed to prevent certain types of transactions from propogatin=
g. Wouldn&#39;t it then be <i>worse</i> if these 80% of users went and ran =
an alternative implementation, most likely written by it&#39;s most radical=
 supporters? Or even worse still, felt compelled to coordinate a UASF to bl=
ock these transactions entirely?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">I at no point intended to insinuate that you or any other core co=
ntributer be compelled to implement a proposal like this. It&#39;s up to it=
s supporters to do so. The real question is, are you willing to work with a=
nd compromise with people who are looking for a solution like this? Or are =
you going to force them to abandon the Core project entirely?</div><div><br=
></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best,</div><div><font face=3D"courier new, monospa=
ce"><b>Aiden McClelland</b></font></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 2:03=E2=80=AF=
PM Greg Maxwell &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer=
 noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&gt;=C2=A0<span lang=3D"EN-US">1)=C2=
=A0</span><span lang=3D"EN-US">Allowing node</span></div><div><span lang=3D=
"EN-US"><br></span></div><div><span lang=3D"EN-US">Who said anything about =
allowing?=C2=A0 Everyone is allowed to do whatever they want.=C2=A0 Drill a=
 hole in your head if you like, not my concern.=C2=A0 None of this thread i=
s about what people are allowed to do-- that&#39;s off the table.=C2=A0 The=
 design and licensing of Bitcoin is such that no one gets to stop anyone el=
se from what they=C2=A0want to do anyways (which is, in fact, a big part of=
 the issue here).=C2=A0 =C2=A0To think otherwise is to be stuck in a kind o=
f serf thinking where you can only do what other people allow you to do.=C2=
=A0 That has never been what Bitcoin was about.</span></div><div><span lang=
=3D"EN-US"><br></span></div><div><span lang=3D"EN-US">Rather, the question =
is should people who care about Bitcoin spend their time and money developi=
ng infrastructure that would be useful, even primarily useful, for censorsh=
ip.=C2=A0 I say no.=C2=A0 Especially because any time spent on it is time a=
way from anti-censorship pro-privacy tools and because the effort spent doi=
ng so would undermine anti-censorship and pro-privacy efforts because they =
would inevitably=C2=A0moot the efforts=C2=A0expected getting into peoples b=
usiness and filtering their transactions.</span></div><div><span lang=3D"EN=
-US"><br></span></div><div><span lang=3D"EN-US">You don&#39;t have to agree=
, and you&#39;re free to do your own thing just as I&#39;m free to say that=
 I think it&#39;s a bad=C2=A0direction.=C2=A0 From the very beginning Bitco=
in has stood against the freedom to transact being=C2=A0</span>overridden b=
y some admin based on their judgment call weighing principles against other=
 concerns, or at the behest of their superiors.=C2=A0 So many Bitcoiner wil=
l stand against, route around, and do what they can do to make ineffectual =
the blocking of consensual=C2=A0transactions.=C2=A0 It might not seem as ma=
ny at the moment, but the pro-privacy and anti-censorship &#39;side&#39; do=
esn&#39;t have a paid PR and influence campaign,=C2=A0 but it also doesn=
9;t matter so much because Bitcoin takes advantage of the nature of informa=
tion being easy to spread and hard to stifel and it doesn&#39;t that that h=
uge an effort to route around censorship efforts.</div><div><br></div><div>=
There are elements of anti-censorship in Bitcoin that have been so far unde=
rdeveloped.=C2=A0 It&#39;s unfortunate that their further development might=
 be forced at a time when efforts are needed on other areas.=C2=A0 But perh=
aps they wouldn&#39;t get done without a concrete motivation. Such is life.=
</div><div><br></div><div><span lang=3D"EN-US"><br></span></div><div><span =
lang=3D"EN-US"><br></span></div><div><span lang=3D"EN-US"><br></span></div>=
</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">=
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 9:21=E2=80=AFAM yes_please &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ca=
ucasianjazz12@gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D=
"_blank">caucasianjazz12@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;b=
order-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><p style=3D"color:rgba(232,230,227,0.87);font-family:Robo=
to,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span lang=3D"EN-=
US">Sorry Greg, could you please elaborate further on your ideas? Some are =
not exactly clear:</span></p><p style=3D"color:rgba(232,230,227,0.87);font-=
family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span =
lang=3D"EN-US">1)=C2=A0</span><span lang=3D"EN-US">Allowing node runners to=
 configure their node as they please and refuse to relay some txs is consid=
ered authoritarian, censorship, and an attempt to regulate third parties co=
nduct. On the other hand, forcing nodes to merge towards a single shared co=
nfiguration (by preventing them to block txs) is not considered authoritari=
an because this imposition does not discriminate towards any txs and is thu=
s non-authoritarian? Did I get the reasoning correctly here?</span></p><p s=
tyle=3D"color:rgba(232,230,227,0.87);font-family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helveti=
ca,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span lang=3D"EN-US">2) I</span><span>f=
 the aim is to have a homogenous mempool state and to model what will get m=
ined, shouldn=E2=80=99t we reach this state through distributed independent=
 nodes who decide=C2=A0independently on what they prefer this homogenous st=
ate to be? If we don=E2=80=99t reach this state through this distributed/in=
dependent mechanism, then how are we to reach this state? Who gets to decid=
e and steer the direction so that we all converge towards this homogenous s=
tate?=C2=A0 One of the strongest aspects of bitcoin is the fact that no sin=
gle party can force a change/direction, and the network has to somehow reac=
h a shared agreement through independent decision makers who act in what ma=
nner they think is best. The proposed BIP seems to be aligned with such a p=
rinciple, I fail to see any authoritarian aspect here.=C2=A0</span></p><p s=
tyle=3D"color:rgba(232,230,227,0.87);font-family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helveti=
ca,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span>3)=C2=A0</span><span>I share your=
 sentiment and the aim to have a homogenous mempool state, but I am skeptic=
al of the manner in which we are to achieve this according to the ideas you=
 have here expressed (namely not through a distributed independent organic =
manner)</span></p><p style=3D"color:rgba(232,230,227,0.87);font-family:Robo=
to,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span lang=3D"EN-=
US"><br></span></p><p style=3D"color:rgba(232,230,227,0.87);font-family:Rob=
oto,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span lang=3D"EN=
-US">Respectfully, yes_please=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0</span></p></div><br><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2=
025 at 12:50=E2=80=AFAM Greg Maxwell &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.c=
om" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gma=
il.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;borde=
r-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>So th=
at when the &quot;consistent state&quot; changes as a result of some issue =
you can update configs instead of having to update software-- which has con=
siderable more costs and risks, especially if you&#39;re carrying local cus=
tomizations as many miners do.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at =
8:47=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:me@drbonez.dev" rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">me@drbonez.dev</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-colo=
r:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">If mempool consistency across the netw=
ork is all that is important, why allow any configuration of mempool relay =
policies at all?<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" class=
=3D"gmail_attr">On Wednesday, September 24, 2025 at 12:47:28=E2=80=AFPM UTC=
-6 Greg Maxwell wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;bord=
er-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>This=
 appears to substantially=C2=A0misunderstands the purpose of the mempool br=
oadly in the network-- it&#39;s purpose is to model what will get mined.=C2=
=A0 If you&#39;re not doing that you might as well set blocks only.=C2=A0 S=
ignificant=C2=A0discrepancies=C2=A0are harmful to the system and promote ce=
ntralization=C2=A0and fail to achieve a useful purpose in any case.=C2=A0 W=
hat marginal benefits might be provided do not justify=C2=A0building and de=
ploying the technological=C2=A0infrastructure=C2=A0for massive censorship.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>If you think this is important, I advise you to se=
lect another cryptocurrency which is compatible with such authoritarian=C2=
=A0leanings.=C2=A0 -- though I am unsure if any exist since it is such a tr=
ansparently pointless direction.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D=
"gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 6:30=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland &lt;<=
a rel=3D"nofollow noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer">m...@drbonez.dev</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-le=
ft-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi=
 all,</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;d like to share for discussion a draft=
 BIP to allow for a modular mempool/relay policy: <a href=3D"https://github=
.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1985" rel=3D"nofollow noreferrer noreferrer noreferr=
er" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1985</a><br><br>=
</div><div>I think it could potentially reduce conflict within the communit=
y around relay policy, as an alternative to running lots of different node =
implementations/forks when there are disagreements.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>I am working on a reference implementation using Bellard&#39;s QuickJS, b=
ut it has been almost a decade since I&#39;ve written C++, so it&#39;s slow=
 going and I&#39;m sure doesn&#39;t follow best-practices. Once it&#39;s wo=
rking, it can be cleaned up.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Aid=
en McClelland<br></div>

<p></p></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-=
left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">

-- <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 rel=3D"nofollow noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer">bitcoindev+...=
@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c68c6554f56n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" rel=3D"nofollow noreferrer noreferrer =
noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c68c6554f56n%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" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@g=
ooglegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/de4dae19-86f4-4d7a-a895-b48664babbfcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferre=
r" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/de4dae19-=
86f4-4d7a-a895-b48664babbfcn%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" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@g=
ooglegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRABqRe1j6xzW0uhVrDiQnL6x1X6ALzfsJ7w4GztWVeNA%40mail.gmail=
.com?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferr=
er noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind=
ev/CAAS2fgRABqRe1j6xzW0uhVrDiQnL6x1X6ALzfsJ7w4GztWVeNA%40mail.gmail.com</a>=
.<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</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">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSXX5_TU86r%3DQOQAvg84tpRa7o9ha5%3DEn3tPmTUBrrqhw%40mail.g=
mail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSXX5_TU86r%3DQOQAvg84tpRa7o=
9ha5%3DEn3tPmTUBrrqhw%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></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/CAL5BAw2E2nupsgrZE6z2T2Fd4VWnF-NvPOZXXaOtbOLHSTWi-g%40mail.gmail=
.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/ms=
gid/bitcoindev/CAL5BAw2E2nupsgrZE6z2T2Fd4VWnF-NvPOZXXaOtbOLHSTWi-g%40mail.g=
mail.com</a>.<br />

--000000000000e4be36063faabc14--