path: root/41/9255c663c3b01afa9ba61fc73eefb8dec89157

Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EE3C0012
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:30:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0BD60E4C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:30:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id lv_Httwg2Q6l
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:30:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yw1-x1130.google.com (mail-yw1-x1130.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1130])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58FBF60DB2
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:30:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1130.google.com with SMTP id
 00721157ae682-2e5827a76f4so140005267b3.6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 01:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=mCr0/axvuojfVpiwMi5vWmogUueI2PrH4Mknzd9R3Gw=;
 b=4V8Y/y8NOBJ+JBo6kIJebisR477qpRUQufJa/R0DB6Yzbh4phA7NKOYTqsDI1w4j6I
 MVlOYapeCpUJa6mHyACMFj1kH3evlfeUyZCSPSDL5eavX+rqztXjzEmAqitrMdiYFTz7
 d76xA+jRAK4WpA2II0p4V3b6btNNjf8XV11D2ahz8ZvA+4WUEHUK8Yh1u7+vy62oQk4y
 quhmd3F61hMaLXBZhoSKmANZN5D+HJRXXna4Ms2WjUiD//PkzCUyMMIQ4UKVCrQqnn2g
 SRGoRoMEFnbpuytFmBjDsqZAa7Yiv9CAMi2kM9+t5TVyI0k2ikOqEzhzafKEkq2B88zq
 JPzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=mCr0/axvuojfVpiwMi5vWmogUueI2PrH4Mknzd9R3Gw=;
 b=GcAGe3SoSxkWSQhaoGacl2cbiaOmGFxEIJdMHLLmEvRuWRoe4jWIsa0ZteX77H/DwV
 x+mIVK2p/I6oST9DXinCRmXihUVVohM9BtEieNryUuU5D+0JjCDp/lbUgJpGTtBg0qC+
 ZigUcnF4obDYX0BxrkQ+/3hEEVig0zWBl96TgCdrUWe6/ht5bameZNLR2gyXRlLnzeos
 BXqCnsIW4jY6C9qyrYS9ipkbBzdzMNZXzEW3gaX3O1aOHDoecOD4pEeBEUKh+lpnJZ0R
 1QM2q0QZUkmxcdRTXICpQNFYnnBmlrbzfLMMDQ0DF/yTvuRXNw5gcqJdwNg4awcc6ypI
 aycQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TqnZDdjecgRi5sNvEAFbVufoGAlaq6okUAwjxaCjGfCV2EMJH
 R9lZ1/4bFjuUbPFXMwympsIFtiJ3cvui2gG0mttpww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymkN3g8G3EvWEaanVoc6BbyCL3LKaG6MfLTVZhQeoOzT3RX5mo35heCZLv85hJeicrHqxZOD9aaPsn+orYAxk=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:6c58:0:b0:2e5:9e17:d9b6 with SMTP id
 h85-20020a816c58000000b002e59e17d9b6mr24074158ywc.240.1648456211235; Mon, 28
 Mar 2022 01:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMZUoKkTDjDSgnqhYio8Lnh-yTdsNAdXbDC9RQwnN00RdbbL6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABm2gDrdoD3QZ=gZ_nd7Q+AZpetX32dLON7pfdC4aAwpLRd4xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoK=kpZZw++WmdRM0KTkj6dQhmtsanm9eH1TksNwypKS8Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABm2gDpFFg47Ld3HHhTq2SVTaCusm1ybDpEmvKV=S3cFTAQwoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220315154549.GA7580@erisian.com.au>
 <CABm2gDpK8eRx3ATbxkF5ic1usUdT4vKiPJyjmPVc-HEOGkxm-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220322234951.GB11179@erisian.com.au>
 <CABm2gDoC5Y=o6Vu7urzBoioVmXBf+YBLg95w-kupx9nidRDBPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220326014546.GA12225@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20220326014546.GA12225@erisian.com.au>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:31:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpMxN0sBCpcbmvYsQbdsGp=JRjAyLhsd6BWyAxdCY95+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6197105db431e98"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:15:00 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:30:18 -0000

--000000000000e6197105db431e98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 01:45 Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:30:09PM +0100, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-de=
v
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I won't answer to everything, because it's clear you're not
> listening.
>
> I'm not agreeing with you; that's different to not listening to you.
>

You're disagreeing with thw premises of the example. That's not
disagreeing, that's refusing to understand the example.


> > In the HYPOTHETICAL CASE that there's an evil for, the fork being evil
> > is a PREMISE of that hypothetical case, a GIVEN.
>
> Do you really find people more inclined to start agreeing with you when
> you begin yelling at them? When other people start shouting at you,
> do you feel like it's a discussion that you're engaged in?
>

I just wanted to make sure you catched the PREMISE word.


> > Your claim that "if it's evil, good people would oppose it" is a NON
> > SEQUITUR, "good people" aren't necessarily perfect and all knowing.
> > good people can make mistakes, they can be fooled too.
> > In the hypothetical case that THERE'S AN EVIL FORK, if "good people"
> > don't complain, it is because they didn't realize that the given fork
> > was evil. Because in our hypothetical example THE EVIL FORK IS EVIL BY
> > DEFINITION, THAT'S THE HYPOTHETICAL CASE I WANT TO DISCUSS, not the
> > hypothetical case where there's a fork some people think it's evil but
> > it's not really evil.
>
> The problem with that approach is that any solution we come up with
> doesn't only have to deal with the hypotheticals you want to discuss
>

Sure, but if it doesn't deal with this hypothetical, one canbot pretending
it does by explaing how it does in a different hypothetical.

In particular, any approach that allows you to block an evil fork,
> even when everyone else doesn't agree that it's evil, would also allow
> an enemy of bitcoin to block a good fork, that everyone else correctly
> recognises is good. A solution that works for an implausible hypothetical
> and breaks when a single attacker decides to take advantage of it is
> not a good design.
>

Let's discuss those too. Feel free to point out how bip8 fails at some
hypothetical cases speedy trial doesn't.

And I did already address what to do in exactly that scenario:
>
> > > But hey what about the worst case: what if everyone else in bitcoin
> > > is evil and supports doing evil things. And maybe that's not even
> > > implausible: maybe it's not an "evil" thing per se, perhaps [...]
> > >
> > > In that scenario, I think a hard fork is the best choice: split out a
> new
> > > coin that will survive the upcoming crash, adjust the mining/difficul=
ty
> > > algorithm so it works from day one, and set it up so that you can
> > > maintain it along with the people who support your vision, rather tha=
n
> > > having to constantly deal with well-meaning attacks from "bitcoiners"
> > > who don't see the risks and have lost the plot.
> > >
> > > Basically: do what Satoshi did and create a better system, and let
> > > everyone else join you as the problems with the old one eventually
> become
> > > unavoidably obvious.
>
> > Once you understand what hypothetical case I'm talking about, maybe
> > you can understand the rest of my reasoning.
>
> As I understand it, your hypothetical is:
>
>  0) someone has come up with a bad idea
>  1) most of bitcoin is enthusiastically behind the idea
>  2) you are essentially alone in discovering that it's a bad idea
>  3) almost everyone remains enthusiastic, despite your explanations that
>     it's a bad idea
>  4) nevertheless, you and your colleagues who are aware the idea is bad
>     should have the power to stop the bad idea
>  5) bip8 gives you the power to stop the bad idea but speedy trial does n=
ot
>



Again given (0), I think (1) and (2) are already not very likely, and (3)
> is simply not plausible. But in the event that it does somehow occur,
> I disagree with (4) for the reasons I describe above; namely, that any
> mechanism that did allow that would be unable to distinguish between the
> "bad idea" case and something along the lines of
>

Ok, yeah, the bitcoin developers currently paying attention to the mailibg
list being fooled or making a review mistake is completely unfeasible.
They're all way to humble for that, obviously...sigh.

 0') someone has come up with a good idea (yay!)
>  1') most of bitcoin is enthusiastically behind the idea
>  2') an enemy of bitcoin is essentially alone in trying to stop it
>  3') almost everyone remains enthusiastic, despite that guy's incoherent
>      raving
>  4') nevertheless, the enemies of bitcoin should have the power to stop
>      the good idea
>
> And, as I said in the previous mail, I think (5) is false, independently
> of any of the other conditions.
>

"That guy's incoherent raving"
"I'm just disagreeing".

Never mind, anthony.
Ypu absolutely understood what I'm saying. It's just that I'm also
incoherent to you, it seems. But, hey, again, no contradiction here, I
guess.



> But if you don't understand the PREMISES of my example,
>
> You can come up with hypothetical premises that invalidate bitcoin,
> let alone some activation method. For example, imagine if the Federal
> Reserve Board are full of geniuses and know exactly when to keep issuance
> predictable and when to juice the economy? Having flexibility gives more
> options than hardcoding "21M" somewhere, so clearly the USD's approach
> is the way to go, and everything is just a matter of appointing the
> right people to the board, not all this decentralised stuff.
>
> The right answer is to reject bad premises, not to argue hypotheticals
> that have zero relationship to reality
>

Ok, stop arguing a hypothetical you don't want to arhue about. But you
can't say both "I don't want to consider that hypothetical" and "we
considered all hypotheticals" at the same time.
I mean, you can, you only can't if you don't want to contradict yourself.

I'll have to wait for someone who actually can both understand the
hypothetical and ve willing to discuss it.
I think you didn't understand it, but either way: thank you for admitting
you don't want to discuss it.
Let's stop wasting each other's time then.


Cheers,
> aj
>
>

--000000000000e6197105db431e98
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 01:45 Anthony Towns &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:aj@erisian.com.au">aj@erisian.com.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:30:09PM +0100, Jorge=
 Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; Sorry, I won&#39;t answer to everything, because it&#39;s clear you&#3=
9;re not listening.<br>
<br>
I&#39;m not agreeing with you; that&#39;s different to not listening to you=
.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"=
>You&#39;re disagreeing with thw premises of the example. That&#39;s not di=
sagreeing, that&#39;s refusing to understand the example.</div><div dir=3D"=
auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
<br>
&gt; In the HYPOTHETICAL CASE that there&#39;s an evil for, the fork being =
evil<br>
&gt; is a PREMISE of that hypothetical case, a GIVEN.<br>
<br>
Do you really find people more inclined to start agreeing with you when<br>
you begin yelling at them? When other people start shouting at you,<br>
do you feel like it&#39;s a discussion that you&#39;re engaged in?<br></blo=
ckquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I just wa=
nted to make sure you catched the PREMISE word.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">
<br>
&gt; Your claim that &quot;if it&#39;s evil, good people would oppose it&qu=
ot; is a NON<br>
&gt; SEQUITUR, &quot;good people&quot; aren&#39;t necessarily perfect and a=
ll knowing.<br>
&gt; good people can make mistakes, they can be fooled too.<br>
&gt; In the hypothetical case that THERE&#39;S AN EVIL FORK, if &quot;good =
people&quot;<br>
&gt; don&#39;t complain, it is because they didn&#39;t realize that the giv=
en fork<br>
&gt; was evil. Because in our hypothetical example THE EVIL FORK IS EVIL BY=
<br>
&gt; DEFINITION, THAT&#39;S THE HYPOTHETICAL CASE I WANT TO DISCUSS, not th=
e<br>
&gt; hypothetical case where there&#39;s a fork some people think it&#39;s =
evil but<br>
&gt; it&#39;s not really evil.<br>
<br>
The problem with that approach is that any solution we come up with<br>
doesn&#39;t only have to deal with the hypotheticals you want to discuss<br=
></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Sur=
e, but if it doesn&#39;t deal with this hypothetical, one canbot pretending=
 it does by explaing how it does in a different hypothetical.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">
In particular, any approach that allows you to block an evil fork,<br>
even when everyone else doesn&#39;t agree that it&#39;s evil, would also al=
low<br>
an enemy of bitcoin to block a good fork, that everyone else correctly<br>
recognises is good. A solution that works for an implausible hypothetical<b=
r>
and breaks when a single attacker decides to take advantage of it is<br>
not a good design.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">Let&#39;s discuss those too. Feel free to point out how b=
ip8 fails at some hypothetical cases speedy trial doesn&#39;t.=C2=A0</div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And I did already address what to do in exactly that scenario:<br>
<br>
&gt; &gt; But hey what about the worst case: what if everyone else in bitco=
in<br>
&gt; &gt; is evil and supports doing evil things. And maybe that&#39;s not =
even<br>
&gt; &gt; implausible: maybe it&#39;s not an &quot;evil&quot; thing per se,=
 perhaps [...]<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; In that scenario, I think a hard fork is the best choice: split o=
ut a new<br>
&gt; &gt; coin that will survive the upcoming crash, adjust the mining/diff=
iculty<br>
&gt; &gt; algorithm so it works from day one, and set it up so that you can=
<br>
&gt; &gt; maintain it along with the people who support your vision, rather=
 than<br>
&gt; &gt; having to constantly deal with well-meaning attacks from &quot;bi=
tcoiners&quot;<br>
&gt; &gt; who don&#39;t see the risks and have lost the plot.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Basically: do what Satoshi did and create a better system, and le=
t<br>
&gt; &gt; everyone else join you as the problems with the old one eventuall=
y become<br>
&gt; &gt; unavoidably obvious.<br>
<br>
&gt; Once you understand what hypothetical case I&#39;m talking about, mayb=
e<br>
&gt; you can understand the rest of my reasoning.<br>
<br>
As I understand it, your hypothetical is:<br>
<br>
=C2=A00) someone has come up with a bad idea<br>
=C2=A01) most of bitcoin is enthusiastically behind the idea<br>
=C2=A02) you are essentially alone in discovering that it&#39;s a bad idea<=
br>
=C2=A03) almost everyone remains enthusiastic, despite your explanations th=
at<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 it&#39;s a bad idea<br>
=C2=A04) nevertheless, you and your colleagues who are aware the idea is ba=
d<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 should have the power to stop the bad idea<br>
=C2=A05) bip8 gives you the power to stop the bad idea but speedy trial doe=
s not<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Again given (0), I think (1) and (2) are already not very likely, and (3)<b=
r>
is simply not plausible. But in the event that it does somehow occur,<br>
I disagree with (4) for the reasons I describe above; namely, that any<br>
mechanism that did allow that would be unable to distinguish between the<br=
>
&quot;bad idea&quot; case and something along the lines of<br></blockquote>=
</div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Ok, yeah, the bit=
coin developers currently paying attention to the mailibg list being fooled=
 or making a review mistake is completely unfeasible. They&#39;re all way t=
o humble for that, obviously...sigh.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=C2=A00&#39;) someone has come up with a good idea (yay!)<br>
=C2=A01&#39;) most of bitcoin is enthusiastically behind the idea<br>
=C2=A02&#39;) an enemy of bitcoin is essentially alone in trying to stop it=
<br>
=C2=A03&#39;) almost everyone remains enthusiastic, despite that guy&#39;s =
incoherent<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0raving<br>
=C2=A04&#39;) nevertheless, the enemies of bitcoin should have the power to=
 stop<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the good idea<br>
<br>
And, as I said in the previous mail, I think (5) is false, independently<br=
>
of any of the other conditions.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">&quot;That guy&#39;s incoherent raving&quot;=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">&quot;I&#39;m just disagreeing&quot;.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Never mind, anthony.</div><div dir=3D=
"auto">Ypu absolutely understood what I&#39;m saying. It&#39;s just that I&=
#39;m also incoherent to you, it seems. But, hey, again, no contradiction h=
ere, I guess.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
&gt; But if you don&#39;t understand the PREMISES of my example, <br>
<br>
You can come up with hypothetical premises that invalidate bitcoin,<br>
let alone some activation method. For example, imagine if the Federal<br>
Reserve Board are full of geniuses and know exactly when to keep issuance<b=
r>
predictable and when to juice the economy? Having flexibility gives more<br=
>
options than hardcoding &quot;21M&quot; somewhere, so clearly the USD&#39;s=
 approach<br>
is the way to go, and everything is just a matter of appointing the<br>
right people to the board, not all this decentralised stuff. <br>
<br>
The right answer is to reject bad premises, not to argue hypotheticals<br>
that have zero relationship to reality<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Ok, stop arguing a hypothetical you d=
on&#39;t want to arhue about. But you can&#39;t say both &quot;I don&#39;t =
want to consider that hypothetical&quot; and &quot;we considered all hypoth=
eticals&quot; at the same time.</div><div dir=3D"auto">I mean, you can, you=
 only can&#39;t if you don&#39;t want to contradict yourself.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I&#39;ll have to wait for someone who=
 actually can both understand the hypothetical and ve willing to discuss it=
.</div><div dir=3D"auto">I think you didn&#39;t understand it, but either w=
ay: thank you for admitting you don&#39;t want to discuss it.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto">Let&#39;s stop wasting each other&#39;s time then.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Cheers,<br>
aj<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--000000000000e6197105db431e98--