1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
|
Return-Path: <peter.tschipper@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275EE957
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:35:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com
[209.85.220.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00CD117E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:35:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so37874155pac.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:35:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-type;
bh=/ndXU2+4n8v32b8XHGp21IV1WKuu4x8wGLjQjTyO+f8=;
b=AFSn4WB0GDpjKbT02ws28r+IpdwE44ed+cs7Kz54z/GimNf7xI+e20PBxxtddhuZT8
KUVdDBf388FZXmjfY33iHIfaMGlFqXxwugdnjuWDZ0NC6/6jGeYM/m3lpTfLSekkmxOY
yoQLTA9/4ScXQSEGhsvSCk2ajOploymNc5zluWtohyBndIMxLCSGSPc7i2nNjlJ6uncj
o25B+C6AFjvr9TrRZXnHxV/CKOYFHVpw9BAo+jdolBk00pnJRPh4pBXh/HBTGt1q540a
F/alcYcnTUS7JSBCF7IC1wTwytp0ndpYpgKJ2jaMkrayLsTZUO15rXNlZROoG6gLH/ed
WaJw==
X-Received: by 10.67.22.66 with SMTP id hq2mr16255414pad.81.1447266901632;
Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:35:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.132] (S0106bcd165303d84.cc.shawcable.net.
[96.54.102.88]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
j12sm10566138pbq.55.2015.11.11.10.35.00
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:35:01 -0800 (PST)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <5640F172.3010004@gmail.com> <20151109210449.GE5886@mcelrath.org>
<CAL7-sS0Apm4O_Qi0FmY7=H580rEVD6DYjk2y+ACpZmKqUJTQwA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALOxbZtTUrZwDfy_jTbs60n=K8RKDGg5X0gkLsh-OX3ikLf1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OUB-se_HUvW2NLjWt=0d5sgMiPEciu0hLzr_HQN0m9fqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5642172C.701@gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OXgWCHL_3CDR-ACc7ojbLi7EavyObNa3s7hPUMGj_V2+A@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcYAj9_r6tu8Be-U81LDwWvnv04PZJMmc-S4cY7+jxfzGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Tschipper <peter.tschipper@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56438A55.2010604@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:35:01 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYAj9_r6tu8Be-U81LDwWvnv04PZJMmc-S4cY7+jxfzGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------040505020703050008030503"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] request BIP number for: "Support for Datastream
Compression"
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:35:03 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040505020703050008030503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Here are the latest results on compression ratios for the first 295,000
blocks, compressionlevel=6. I think there are more than enough
datapoints for statistical significance.
Results are very much similar to the previous test. I'll work on
getting a comparison between how much time savings/loss in time there is
when syncing the blockchains: compressed vs uncompressed. Still, I
think it's clear that serving up compressed blocks, at least historical
blocks, will be of benefit for those that have bandwidth caps on their
internet connections.
The proposal, so far is fairly simple:
1) compress blocks with some compression library: currently zlib but I
can investigate other possiblities
2) As a fall back we need to advertise compression as a service. That
way we can turn off compression AND decompression completely if needed.
3) Do the compression at the datastream level in the code. CDataStream
is the obvious place.
Test Results:
range = block size range
ubytes = average size of uncompressed blocks
cbytes = average size of compressed blocks
ctime = average time to compress
dtime = average time to decompress
cmp_ratio% = compression ratio
datapoints = number of datapoints taken
range ubytes cbytes ctime dtime cmp_ratio% datapoints
0-250b 215 189 0.001 0.000 12.40 91280
250-500b 438 404 0.001 0.000 7.85 13217
500-1KB 761 701 0.001 0.000 7.86 11434
1KB-10KB 4149 3547 0.001 0.000 14.51 52180
10KB-100KB 41934 32604 0.005 0.001 22.25 82890
100KB-200KB 146303 108080 0.016 0.001 26.13 29886
200KB-300KB 243299 179281 0.025 0.002 26.31 25066
300KB-400KB 344636 266177 0.036 0.003 22.77 4956
400KB-500KB 463201 356862 0.046 0.004 22.96 3167
500KB-600KB 545123 429854 0.056 0.005 21.15 366
600KB-700KB 647736 510931 0.065 0.006 21.12 254
700KB-800KB 746540 587287 0.073 0.008 21.33 294
800KB-900KB 868121 682650 0.087 0.008 21.36 199
900KB-1MB 945747 726307 0.091 0.010 23.20 304
On 10/11/2015 8:46 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Comments:
>
> 1) cblock seems a reasonable way to extend the protocol. Further
> wrapping should probably be done at the stream level.
>
> 2) zlib has crappy security track record.
>
> 3) A fallback path to non-compressed is required, should compression
> fail or crash.
>
> 4) Most blocks and transactions have runs of zeroes and/or highly
> common bit-patterns, which contributes to useful compression even at
> smaller sizes. Peter Ts's most recent numbers bear this out. zlib
> has a dictionary (32K?) which works well with repeated patterns such
> as those you see with concatenated runs of transactions.
>
> 5) LZO should provide much better compression, at a cost of CPU
> performance and using a less-reviewed, less-field-tested library.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper
> <peter.tschipper@gmail.com <mailto:peter.tschipper@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly
> true but for sending historical blocks and seding transactions
> I don't think so. This PR is really designed to save
> bandwidth and not intended to be a huge performance
> improvement in terms of time spent sending.
>
>
> If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just
> blocks is the best plan.
>
> Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a
> "cblocks" message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate
> the block messages as payload before compression).
>
> The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is
> compressing at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal).
> It is probably worth specifying a maximum size for network buffer
> reasons (either 1MB or 1 block maximum).
>
> Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed
> "ctxs". The inv messages could be modified so that you can
> request groups of 10-20 transactions. That would depend on how
> much of an improvement compressed transactions would represent.
>
> More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed
> message holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the
> effort though.
>
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via
>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly
>> considerable, especially for people running full
>> nodes in countries like Australia where internet
>> bandwidth is lower and there are data caps.
>>
>>
>> This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions
>> should be be local and negotiated between peers, not a
>> required feature of the network P2P.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johnathan Corgan
>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services
>> http://corganlabs.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------040505020703050008030503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Here are the latest results on
compression ratios for the first 295,000 blocks,
compressionlevel=6. I think there are more than enough datapoints
for statistical significance. <br>
<br>
Results are very much similar to the previous test. I'll work on
getting a comparison between how much time savings/loss in time
there is when syncing the blockchains: compressed vs
uncompressed. Still, I think it's clear that serving up
compressed blocks, at least historical blocks, will be of benefit
for those that have bandwidth caps on their internet connections.<br>
<br>
The proposal, so far is fairly simple:<br>
1) compress blocks with some compression library: currently zlib
but I can investigate other possiblities<br>
2) As a fall back we need to advertise compression as a service.
That way we can turn off compression AND decompression completely
if needed.<br>
3) Do the compression at the datastream level in the code.
CDataStream is the obvious place.<br>
<br>
<br>
Test Results:<br>
<br>
range = block size range<br>
ubytes = average size of uncompressed blocks<br>
cbytes = average size of compressed blocks<br>
ctime = average time to compress<br>
dtime = average time to decompress<br>
cmp_ratio% = compression ratio<br>
datapoints = number of datapoints taken<br>
<br>
range ubytes cbytes ctime dtime cmp_ratio%
datapoints<br>
0-250b 215 189 0.001 0.000 12.40
91280<br>
250-500b 438 404 0.001 0.000 7.85
13217<br>
500-1KB 761 701 0.001 0.000
7.86 11434<br>
1KB-10KB 4149 3547 0.001 0.000 14.51
52180<br>
10KB-100KB 41934 32604 0.005 0.001 22.25
82890<br>
100KB-200KB 146303 108080 0.016 0.001 26.13 29886<br>
200KB-300KB 243299 179281 0.025 0.002 26.31 25066<br>
300KB-400KB 344636 266177 0.036 0.003 22.77 4956<br>
400KB-500KB 463201 356862 0.046 0.004 22.96 3167<br>
500KB-600KB 545123 429854 0.056 0.005 21.15 366<br>
600KB-700KB 647736 510931 0.065 0.006 21.12 254<br>
700KB-800KB 746540 587287 0.073 0.008 21.33 294<br>
800KB-900KB 868121 682650 0.087 0.008 21.36 199<br>
900KB-1MB 945747 726307 0.091 0.010 23.20 304<br>
<br>
On 10/11/2015 8:46 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADm_WcYAj9_r6tu8Be-U81LDwWvnv04PZJMmc-S4cY7+jxfzGw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Comments:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) cblock seems a reasonable way to extend the protocol.
Further wrapping should probably be done at the stream level.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) zlib has crappy security track record.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) A fallback path to non-compressed is required, should
compression fail or crash.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4) Most blocks and transactions have runs of zeroes and/or
highly common bit-patterns, which contributes to useful
compression even at smaller sizes. Peter Ts's most recent
numbers bear this out. zlib has a dictionary (32K?) which
works well with repeated patterns such as those you see with
concatenated runs of transactions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>5) LZO should provide much better compression, at a cost of
CPU performance and using a less-reviewed, less-field-tested
library.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Tier
Nolan via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Nov 10,
2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:peter.tschipper@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:peter.tschipper@gmail.com">peter.tschipper@gmail.com</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span></span><span></span>There are better ways of
sending new blocks, that's certainly true but for
sending historical blocks and seding transactions
I don't think so. This PR is really designed to
save bandwidth and not intended to be a huge
performance improvement in terms of time spent
sending.<span><br>
</span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>
<div>If the main point is for historical data, then
sticking to just blocks is the best plan.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Since small blocks don't compress well, you could
define a "cblocks" message that handles multiple
blocks (just concatenate the block messages as
payload before compression). <br>
<br>
The sending peer could combine blocks so that each
cblock is compressing at least 10kB of block data
(or whatever is optimal). It is probably worth
specifying a maximum size for network buffer reasons
(either 1MB or 1 block maximum).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Similarly, transactions could be combined
together and compressed "ctxs". The inv messages
could be modified so that you can request groups of
10-20 transactions. That would depend on how much
of an improvement compressed transactions would
represent. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>More generally, you could define a message which
is a compressed message holder. That is probably to
complex to be worth the effort though.<br>
</div>
<span class="">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10,
2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via
bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><span>
<div style="font-size:small">On
Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM,
gladoscc via bitcoin-dev <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</span>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I think 25%
bandwidth savings is
certainly considerable,
especially for people
running full nodes in
countries like Australia
where internet bandwidth
is lower and there are
data caps.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>
<div>
<div
style="font-size:small;display:inline">
This reinforces the idea
that such trade-off
decisions should be be local
and negotiated between
peers, not a required
feature of the network P2P.</div>
</div>
</div>
<span>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Johnathan
Corgan<br>
Corgan Labs -
SDR Training
and
Development
Services</div>
<div><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://corganlabs.com" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://corganlabs.com">http://corganlabs.com</a></a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040505020703050008030503--
|
