path: root/21/374dac361fa28aa9786a9e495a919efc8f4acd

Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F24C23EE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:07:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com
	[209.85.220.41])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521401F2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pawq9 with SMTP id q9so12754192paw.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=yDLWY2PdT8sMDXAUY+s8SDyjeTk2Fv7TMgguc1oV/wk=;
	b=ppDYLeMYD1ocKFkDSMuMN9F67ATVsxta0DuyAaen1jmCgIsg+Rmr57SgHgBHyVfgfO
	SY/5rZmJwS1UHZdp+QOuQUmAp/nG44nPk2qHS9UnTpO4cAN1+rgmp7DyFIe9Xx88F0Ux
	zGQQooTEgFyRVcqfB5En8PBCtI8tEYiJtwMLsn8wv0+hniHYgD9s8B6cMB9kvJiXqP1p
	I2+wg2H4HohkaZmpBGhv50xvdwiD5MoVzXgShir/ZyMWmsj16Iqt4JVkEQZi0JWh0QFQ
	SuUXkoV+Q2KbPfpvYjl2HZCx8G7536l+5bvRwLHUE94QXexqKIRF5nMZjh26bPb/FXee
	IbXw==
X-Received: by 10.69.26.38 with SMTP id iv6mr3497791pbd.151.1439824062937;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y2sm15032547pdp.0.2015.08.17.08.07.41
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOyKcO_FBU4C_ghNuRfqLqB8ruivOtNajBs7whbR10xWPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:39 -0700
Message-Id: <1FE73D1F-E984-4662-AB2D-9799CAF1A3CD@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTHfzWr24qELKyYMQ5fy48C1Q-SExCL49w-VMCq2JOdRoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG86ZOyKcO_FBU4C_ghNuRfqLqB8ruivOtNajBs7whbR10xWPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:07:45 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E"


--Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de> wrote:
>=20
> Dear Eric,
>=20
> thank you for sharing your thoughts.
>=20
> It obviously boils down to political beliefs, not so much technical =
arguments. I understand that you are in favor of a "guided =
decentralization" and you are most happily invited to follow this path. =
I don't want to be on it. I want total decentralisation of bitcoin and =
many other parts of the current system.

I specifically asked you to stop misrepresenting - I=E2=80=99m NOT in =
favor of guided decentralization, I never said anything like that. =
*THIS* is the problem=E2=80=A6you=E2=80=99re reading intentions into =
others that simply are NOT there. If you don=E2=80=99t really understand =
something, ask.

I want complete decentralization - but for practical reasons, which =
should be obvious, we cannot start at this point. Bitcoin came into =
existence because Satoshi wrote a whitepaper and implemented the idea - =
and it was his rules. There was no voting, no committee, no =
proof-of-work, no nothing=E2=80=A6it was a complete dictatorship in the =
beginning.

>=20
> So in the end the hard fork might be perfect, because people like you =
will not waste so much more energy and time fighting people like me (and =
others) who are following different dogmata because we are using =
different coins and talking about different code. Interestingly enough =
in the end we will probably have a winner - determined by the price - so =
I am looking forward to the outcome. It is just the time so make some =
bets, which I embrace.
>=20
> Another interesting thing is, that you actually fear problems arising =
from this. What do you have to loose? Just stick with the old bitcoin =
version and weather this storm. Bitcoin is not going to vanish or break =
from this. It is just forking. One fork will come stronger out of this. =
You just have to choose a side and live with it, if you loose it all. =
But that is the story of bitcoin since the beginning. If you ask me, you =
fear the choice, not the change.
>=20

Again, misrepresentation - =E2=80=9Cyou fear the choice, not the =
change=E2=80=9D - why should anyone ask *you* what I fear? Why don=E2=80=99=
t you ask *me*?


> Cheers
>=20
> Levin
>=20
> Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. =
2015 um 16:37 Uhr:
> Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said.
>=20
> Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple
> proposals being evaluated here.
>=20
> I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is
> Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork.  It's a hard-fork on
> Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin core
> SPV nodes that did not opt-in.  It exposes those SPV nodes to loss in
> the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a network-split.
>=20
> The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine
> on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough
> uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have
> to be aborted.
>=20
> Adam
>=20
> On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> > NxtChg,
> >
> > In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted =
anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being =
proposed here.
> >
> > Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the =
protocol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do =
so.
> >
> > This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s =
part=E2=80=A6it is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better =
or worse, it is *very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is =
exactly what imbues Bitcoin with one of its most powerful attributes: =
very well-defined settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered =
nor reversed by anyone.
> >
> > We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6and=
 for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6=
or at least, they have not had nearly the level of political =
divisiveness that this block size issue is having. And even then, =
we=E2=80=99ve encountered a number of problems with these deployments =
that have at times required goodwill cooperation between developers and =
mining pool operators to fix.
> >
> > Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=99=
s being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork before =
like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused =
problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard =
fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think =
people are going to want to cooperate?!?
> >
> > I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other =
people might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue =
the merits of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we =
have NEVER attempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a =
simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not =
risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it not to go =
as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental problem - the whole =
bigger block thing is a minor issue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be =
any controversial change, really.
> >
> > Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6=
the first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat =
without having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork =
mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically =
divisive environment basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even =
worse. We=E2=80=99re basically risking the entire air force (not just =
one plane) over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have =
that we=E2=80=99ve never flown before.
> >
> > We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other =
people=E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it =
to them to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far =
less divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without =
things breaking? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding =
bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - =
that=E2=80=99s such a petty thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking =
about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s =
NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out is =
potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a politically =
divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side will refuse to =
cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easily lead to a =
war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both chains. All =
so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently do? =
Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to =
touching big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine =
a protocol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk.
> >
> > I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and =
to understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything =
out of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to =
deploy hard forks right now without facing these problems. And different =
people obviously have different priorities and preferences as to which =
of these changes would be best to do first. This whole XT thing is =
essentially giving *one* proposal special treatment above those that =
others have proposed. Many of us have only held back from doing this out =
of our belief that goodwill amongst network participants is more =
important than trying to push some pet feature some of us want.
> >
> > Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and =
are doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99=
s right.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>


--Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:post@levinkeller.de" class=3D"">post@levinkeller.de</a>&gt;=
 wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Dear Eric,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div=
 class=3D"">thank you for sharing your thoughts.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It obviously boils down to political =
beliefs, not so much technical arguments. I understand that you are in =
favor of a "guided decentralization" and you are most happily invited to =
follow this path. I don't want to be on it. I want total =
decentralisation of bitcoin and many other parts of the current =
system.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div><div>I =
specifically asked you to stop misrepresenting - I=E2=80=99m NOT in =
favor of guided decentralization, I never said anything like that. =
*THIS* is the problem=E2=80=A6you=E2=80=99re reading intentions into =
others that simply are NOT there. If you don=E2=80=99t really understand =
something, ask.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>I want complete =
decentralization - but for practical reasons, which should be obvious, =
we cannot start at this point. Bitcoin came into existence because =
Satoshi wrote a whitepaper and implemented the idea - and it was his =
rules. There was no voting, no committee, no proof-of-work, no =
nothing=E2=80=A6it was a complete dictatorship in the =
beginning.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So in the end the hard fork might be =
perfect, because people like you will not waste so much more energy and =
time fighting people like me (and others) who are following different =
dogmata because we are using different coins and talking about different =
code. Interestingly enough in the end we will probably have a winner - =
determined by the price - so I am looking forward to the outcome. It is =
just the time so make some bets, which I embrace.</div><div class=3D""><br=
 class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Another interesting thing is, that you =
actually fear problems arising from this. What do you have to loose? =
Just stick with the old bitcoin version and weather this storm. Bitcoin =
is not going to vanish or break from this. It is just forking. One fork =
will come stronger out of this. You just have to choose a side and live =
with it, if you loose it all. But that is the story of bitcoin since the =
beginning. If you ask me, you fear the choice, not the change.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div>Again, misrepresentation - =E2=80=9Cyou fear the =
choice, not the change=E2=80=9D - why should anyone ask *you* what I =
fear? Why don=E2=80=99t you ask *me*?<br class=3D""><div><br =
class=3D""></div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Cheers</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Levin</div></div><br =
class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Adam =
Back via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; schrieb am Mo., =
17. Aug. 2015 um 16:37&nbsp;Uhr:<br class=3D""></div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be =
said.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple<br =
class=3D"">
proposals being evaluated here.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is<br =
class=3D"">
Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork.&nbsp; It's a hard-fork =
on<br class=3D"">
Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin core<br =
class=3D"">
SPV nodes that did not opt-in.&nbsp; It exposes those SPV nodes to loss =
in<br class=3D"">
the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a network-split.<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine<br =
class=3D"">
on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough<br =
class=3D"">
uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have<br =
class=3D"">
to be aborted.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Adam<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev<br class=3D"">
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br class=3D"">
&gt; NxtChg,<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted =
anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being =
proposed here.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the =
protocol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do =
so.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s =
part=E2=80=A6it is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better =
or worse, it is *very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is =
exactly what imbues Bitcoin with one of its most powerful attributes: =
very well-defined settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered =
nor reversed by anyone.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6an=
d for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6=
or at least, they have not had nearly the level of political =
divisiveness that this block size issue is having. And even then, =
we=E2=80=99ve encountered a number of problems with these deployments =
that have at times required goodwill cooperation between developers and =
mining pool operators to fix.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=
=99s being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork =
before like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused =
problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard =
fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think =
people are going to want to cooperate?!?<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other =
people might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue =
the merits of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we =
have NEVER attempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a =
simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not =
risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it not to go =
as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental problem - the whole =
bigger block thing is a minor issue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be =
any controversial change, really.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6=
the first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat =
without having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork =
mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically =
divisive environment basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even =
worse. We=E2=80=99re basically risking the entire air force (not just =
one plane) over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have =
that we=E2=80=99ve never flown before.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other =
people=E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it =
to them to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far =
less divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without =
things breaking? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding =
bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - =
that=E2=80=99s such a petty thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking =
about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s =
NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out is =
potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a politically =
divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side will refuse to =
cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easily lead to a =
war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both chains. All =
so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently do? =
Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to =
touching big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine =
a protocol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk.<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and=
 to understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything =
out of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to =
deploy hard forks right now without facing these problems. And different =
people obviously have different priorities and preferences as to which =
of these changes would be best to do first. This whole XT thing is =
essentially giving *one* proposal special treatment above those that =
others have proposed. Many of us have only held back from doing this out =
of our belief that goodwill amongst network participants is more =
important than trying to push some pet feature some of us want.<br =
class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
&gt; Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and =
are doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99=
s right.<br class=3D"">
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
 class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E--

--Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=jveH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D--