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
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
|
Return-Path: <milly@bitcoins.info>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD77FAC1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50331147
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA
; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:42:46 -0400
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <COL402-EAS109000AAC490BCF2DD69116CDAF0@phx.gbl>
<558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info>
<CAOG=w-sxovqy0kDyBX=cx4CWWb=cd_F5bO3iH8ZBHsa0D_uK+A@mail.gmail.com>
<558B68C3.9050608@bitcoins.info>
<CADm_WcZ+5z-7KDsOaNunSWAROoJEsDSEAFZ-d2C6cZBrQTkBcw@mail.gmail.com>
<trinity-6b7fb94a-bfe3-4439-825e-59322f1200bb-1435218680169@3capp-mailcom-bs08>
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <558BF740.7060003@bitcoins.info>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:42:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <trinity-6b7fb94a-bfe3-4439-825e-59322f1200bb-1435218680169@3capp-mailcom-bs08>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------050803060307020403080603"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE
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] BIP Process and Votes
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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:42:51 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050803060307020403080603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts. Labeling
Open Source software as being "decentralized" just because people can
choose which version to run is a "cultish" claim. Just because Bitcoin
uses the mining process to come to consensus over the state of the
ledger that does not mean the software versions have the same level of
decentralization because users can decide which version to run. I am in
the USA and I can vote in elections but I would not call the US
government "decentralized." It is a very complicated issue and cannot
be explained in one or two sentences of hand-waiving arguments like you
often see here.
Russ
On 6/25/2015 3:51 AM, cipher anthem wrote:
> +1 on this!
>
> I have come across Milly a couple of times on reddit and disqus and
> she basically dismisses anyone who doesn't agree with her opinions.
> always labeling them "cultish". Please ignore her so you can stay
> productive.
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 5:07 AM
> *From:* "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@gmail.com>
> *To:* bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
> Ladies & gents, please do not feed the troll. This has been explained
> to Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mailing list & github
> with no impact.
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response
> everyone gets when they ask that question. If you had a well
> constructed documented process then you would be able to point to
> it ... but you can't. While there are a few bits and pieces
> scattered about in different places there is no coherent plan or
> process.
>
> It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be unanimous"
> but the issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you
> have to move forward in some fashion and everyone has to run
> software with the same consensus rules. The issue is how you move
> forward is the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it
> is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it as a threat
> to their authority/position. If people just keep shutting down
> the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers then you are
> never going to move forward with developing some kind of process.
>
> >From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven
> and not based on Computer Science or and defined process. The
> issue is that a personality has changed so the process is
> perceived to be different and some people want to hard fork.
> Previously, the cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is
> decentralized because people can fork the code. Now that some
> developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem.
> Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the
> work of the devil? The fact that there is so much diverse
> opinion on this shows a defined process has never been fully
> vetted or understood.
>
> I have worked on these processes for many years for projects
> orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin. I can absolutely assure
> you the current mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time
> are wasted. That should be readily apparent from the recent
> discussions and the recent concern it has caused from people
> outside the developer's inner circle.
>
> Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The
> reason that people get defensive is that we have a carefully
> constructed process that does work (thank you very much!) and
> is well documented. We talk about it quite often in fact as it
> is a defining characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which
> differs in some ways from how other open source software is
> developed -- although it remains the same in most other ways.
> Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to
> get merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from
> recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections,
> and the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective
> judgement that the code is ready.
> Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin
> Core only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely
> long discussion period that has given all the relevant
> stakeholders a chance to comment, and no significant
> objections remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They
> must be.
> The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for
> example, with working groups and formal voting procedures, has
> no place where changes define the nature and validity of other
> people's money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket
> and define how you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise
> of bitcoin is that no one has that right, yet that is very
> much what we do when consensus code changes are made. That is
> why when we make a change to the rules governing the nature of
> bitcoin, we must make sure that everyone is made aware of the
> change and consents to it.
> Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without
> issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete
> deployment in the very near future, and we intend to repeat
> this process for more interesting changes such as BIP65:
> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
> This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider."
> This is about no one having the right to decide these things
> on the behalf of others. If a contentious change is proposed
> and not accepted by the process of consensus, that is because
> the process is doing its job at rejecting controversial
> changes. It has nothing to do with personality, and everything
> to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin
> <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
>
> I have seen this question asked many times. Most
> developers become defensive and they usually give a very
> vague 1-sentence answer when this question is asked. It
> seems to be it is based on personalities rather than any
> kind of definable process. To have that discussion the
> personalities must be separated out and answers like
> "such-and-such wouldn't do that" don't really do much to
> advance the discussion. Also, the incentive for new
> developers to come in is that they will be paid by
> companies who want to influence the code and this should
> be considered (some developers take this statement as an
> insult when it is just a statement of the incentive process).
>
> The other problem you are having is the lead developer
> does not want to be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a
> very significant decider. While the users have the
> ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief developer
> is the "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset
> so nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the
> process. Now you are left with a broken,
> unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of thing may
> work with a small group of developers businesses/investors
> looking in from the outside will see this as a risk.
>
> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments
> you are going to have a tough time defining a real process.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>
> I would like to start a civil discussion on an
> undefined, or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP
> process. Who should get to vote on approval to commit
> a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple
> majority of these voters sufficient for approval? If
> not, then what is?
>
> Raystonn
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------050803060307020403080603
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">"Cultish" means making claims without
any supporting facts. Labeling Open Source software as being
"decentralized" just because people can choose which version to
run is a "cultish" claim. Just because Bitcoin uses the mining
process to come to consensus over the state of the ledger that
does not mean the software versions have the same level of
decentralization because users can decide which version to run.
I am in the USA and I can vote in elections but I would not call
the US government "decentralized." It is a very complicated issue
and cannot be explained in one or two sentences of hand-waiving
arguments like you often see here. <br>
<br>
Russ<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/25/2015 3:51 AM, cipher anthem wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-6b7fb94a-bfe3-4439-825e-59322f1200bb-1435218680169@3capp-mailcom-bs08"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>+1 on this!<br>
<br>
I have come across Milly a couple of times on reddit and
disqus and she basically dismisses anyone who doesn't agree
with her opinions. always labeling them "cultish". Please
ignore her so you can stay productive.
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday,
June 25, 2015 at 5:07 AM<br>
<b>From:</b> "Jeff Garzik" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgarzik@gmail.com"><jgarzik@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>Ladies & gents, please do not feed the troll.
This has been explained to Milly multiple times in the
past, on previous mailing list & github with no
impact.
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34
PM, Milly Bitcoin <span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="milly@bitcoins.info" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info">milly@bitcoins.info</a></a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0
0.8ex;border-left: 1.0px rgb(204,204,204)
solid;padding-left: 1.0ex;">
<div>
<div>I'm sorry but that is the kind of
defensive, cultish response everyone gets when
they ask that question. If you had a well
constructed documented process then you would
be able to point to it ... but you can't.
While there are a few bits and pieces
scattered about in different places there is
no coherent plan or process.<br>
<br>
It is easy to make statements like "consensus
must be unanimous" but the issue is that you
never have true 100% consensus yet you have to
move forward in some fashion and everyone has
to run software with the same consensus
rules. The issue is how you move forward is
the question that nobody wants to answer
because (a) it is a hard question to answer
and (b) developers see it as a threat to their
authority/position. If people just keep
shutting down the discussion with a bunch of
cultish stock answers then you are never going
to move forward with developing some kind of
process. <br>
<br>
>From what I can see much of the discussion
is personality-driven and not based on
Computer Science or and defined process. The
issue is that a personality has changed so the
process is perceived to be different and some
people want to hard fork. Previously, the
cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is
decentralized because people can fork the
code. Now that some developers want to fork
the code suddenly it is a big problem. Is
forking the code part of the consensus process
or is it the work of the devil? The fact
that there is so much diverse opinion on this
shows a defined process has never been fully
vetted or understood.<br>
<br>
I have worked on these processes for many
years for projects orders of magnitudes larger
than Bitcoin. I can absolutely assure you the
current mishmash does not scale and huge
amounts of time are wasted. That should be
readily apparent from the recent discussions
and the recent concern it has caused from
people outside the developer's inner circle. <br>
<br>
Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted
effort.<br>
<br>
Russ
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach
wrote:</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>I'm sorry but this is
absolutely not the case, Milly.
The reason that people get
defensive is that we have a
carefully constructed process that
does work (thank you very much!)
and is well documented. We talk
about it quite often in fact as it
is a defining characteristic of
how bitcoin is developed which
differs in some ways from how
other open source software is
developed -- although it remains
the same in most other ways.<br>
</div>
Changes to the non-consensus
sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get
merged when there are a few reviews,
tests, and ACKs from recognized
developers, there are no outstanding
objections, and the maintainer doing
the merge makes a subjective
judgement that the code is ready.<br>
</div>
Consensus-changes, on the other hand,
get merged into Bitcoin Core only
after the above criteria are met AND
an extremely long discussion period
that has given all the relevant
stakeholders a chance to comment, and
no significant objections remain.
Consensus-code changes are unanimous.
They must be.<br>
</div>
<div>The sort of process that exists in
standards bodies for example, with
working groups and formal voting
procedures, has no place where changes
define the nature and validity of
other people's money. Who has the
right to reach into your pocket and
define how you can or cannot spend
your coins? The premise of bitcoin is
that no one has that right, yet that
is very much what we do when consensus
code changes are made. That is why
when we make a change to the rules
governing the nature of bitcoin, we
must make sure that everyone is made
aware of the change and consents to
it.<br>
</div>
<div>Everyone. Does this work? Does this
scale? So far, it does.
Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP
66, are deployed without issue. Every
indication is that BIP 66 will
complete deployment in the very near
future, and we intend to repeat this
process for more interesting changes
such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This isn't about no one stepping
forward to be the "decider." This is
about no one having the right to
decide these things on the behalf of
others. If a contentious change is
proposed and not accepted by the
process of consensus, that is because
the process is doing its job at
rejecting controversial changes. It
has nothing to do with personality,
and everything to do with the nature
of bitcoin itself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On
Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07
PM, Milly Bitcoin <span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="milly@bitcoins.info"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info">milly@bitcoins.info</a></a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0
0.8ex;border-left: 1.0px
rgb(204,204,204)
solid;padding-left:
1.0ex;">I have seen this
question asked many
times. Most developers
become defensive and they
usually give a very vague
1-sentence answer when
this question is asked.
It seems to be it is based
on personalities rather
than any kind of definable
process. To have that
discussion the
personalities must be
separated out and answers
like "such-and-such
wouldn't do that" don't
really do much to advance
the discussion. Also, the
incentive for new
developers to come in is
that they will be paid by
companies who want to
influence the code and
this should be considered
(some developers take this
statement as an insult
when it is just a
statement of the incentive
process).<br>
<br>
The other problem you are
having is the lead
developer does not want to
be a "decider" when, in
fact, he is a very
significant decider.
While the users have the
ultimate choice in a
practical sense the chief
developer is the
"decider." Now people
don't want to get him
upset so nobody wants to
push the issue or fully
define the process. Now
you are left with a
broken, unwritten/unspoken
process. While this type
of thing may work with a
small group of developers
businesses/investors
looking in from the
outside will see this as a
risk.<br>
<br>
Until you get passed all
the personality-based
arguments you are going to
have a tough time defining
a real process.<br>
<br>
Russ
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM,
Raystonn wrote:
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0
0.8ex;border-left:
1.0px
rgb(204,204,204)
solid;padding-left:
1.0ex;">I would like
to start a civil
discussion on an
undefined, or at
least unwritten,
portion of the BIP
process. Who should
get to vote on
approval to commit a
BIP implementation
into Bitcoin Core?
Is a simple majority
of these voters
sufficient for
approval? If not,
then what is?<br>
<br>
Raystonn<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing
list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing
list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_parent">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<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><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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>
--------------050803060307020403080603--
|
