summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorKate Salazar <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail.com>2022-06-29 12:44:11 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2022-06-29 10:44:26 +0000
commit26bfd38421c36fd4b72f97b71eccf6429d9a2406 (patch)
tree66f391ba3324481f08914ceb7f5d1b2ee53c2028
parentff64e06dd3b4a3bf89893b0cd475df688d769e2e (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-26bfd38421c36fd4b72f97b71eccf6429d9a2406.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-26bfd38421c36fd4b72f97b71eccf6429d9a2406.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
-rw-r--r--4f/62b240bbd4db7ccf7ea51c920364dd5bdbce6f375
1 files changed, 375 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/4f/62b240bbd4db7ccf7ea51c920364dd5bdbce6f b/4f/62b240bbd4db7ccf7ea51c920364dd5bdbce6f
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..971a058df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/4f/62b240bbd4db7ccf7ea51c920364dd5bdbce6f
@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+Return-Path: <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail.com>
+Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
+ by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA067C002D
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:44:26 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
+ by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDC88270B
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:44:26 +0000 (UTC)
+DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 8FDC88270B
+Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
+ dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
+ header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=K9wgea0q
+X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
+X-Spam-Flag: NO
+X-Spam-Score: -2.098
+X-Spam-Level:
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
+ tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
+ DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
+ HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
+ SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
+Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
+ by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
+ with ESMTP id Fhosl_cI44Fn
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:44:25 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
+DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 243FE826B4
+Received: from mail-yw1-x1136.google.com (mail-yw1-x1136.google.com
+ [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1136])
+ by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 243FE826B4
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:44:25 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by mail-yw1-x1136.google.com with SMTP id
+ 00721157ae682-3177f4ce3e2so143880747b3.5
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
+ h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
+ bh=fV+j0zohtAwCtHXE9uphQWbAfC/UYQQwfYsR+r/9Vfk=;
+ b=K9wgea0qJTCS3ENmuqJwhpOJqI4boFKu6PbWVI78JKT1he9ifCDQQZ1/oA/qUI7VQ6
+ WD+Rr+ws8lt8rc80rNZcFUrQULlCcUiKOYN64X8JuVdbr3QkzCnTeBGnDGMXp6t8QKVa
+ Y5GVd1dSJ1ucAAjxB/uOgnEWBPLzUNIu3I7vTLCbA4Z0j7ZXlsG9f6uudLGWrcBQUCy5
+ E9YK6FFDu+lIea2pSeCNoLHMK3EZgzCQ8IWB9TUmwFbfvLVeBe+RTqsDlWXth2ZSyRER
+ FvClmh2qW2l0eNO5A49jXk9W2C3q8CZmb+7l+Dz9FdXN2Uei1AVPFQftOsnXpDLr+pHI
+ 8AkQ==
+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;
+ bh=fV+j0zohtAwCtHXE9uphQWbAfC/UYQQwfYsR+r/9Vfk=;
+ b=D7NR3udYkgaqf3KaWigN/92pXnOnxEpjAXUWUi1f0BYQnOhZhZrIp1k4rUn6915+7s
+ TC39n0rT39YFrySlzmRQziapHlCS6sqnxD+zL5avn0QskBa9r0c/RwQ3lLDHFIcahSpn
+ z7R6D5YWZNoAa4D0PlHKkVQNZ57FJXpOpv9CzoS/CNlXvMvAqsf2hDT1tqbr4vvFzmDt
+ nWMEzkYZI6wYTg5AhgmBBKvcelX/0iwsbFJVgS/pNNm82abDDO/f80mboNCGohXYv8A5
+ Ae6SHBCTOyaxN8WRdIurjL0yeS4+OZxj63GiVE9tC+MwLVana9NxK4F/3uUCGrL2tyYo
+ HhZQ==
+X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9Lqo6JyzksZ3ltNbwKmig2INBo6T12IgC472J9vlrRtYp+Gn75
+ L1pwXVS+CV3NcDe98n+AHw2RNNtfOjTOk5jqYApgDryuiIfeBw==
+X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1u33xBwOVkZSPL//osU2ZFbyKZZXjYZBrm/skbZB0LgamLTJ5bcLnO62lry3ObyBU9QrXRs+ep4zOkbTu0YmuY=
+X-Received: by 2002:a0d:dd10:0:b0:317:abd3:a97e with SMTP id
+ g16-20020a0ddd10000000b00317abd3a97emr3210126ywe.56.1656499463946; Wed, 29
+ Jun 2022 03:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+References: <mailman.9.1654344003.14400.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+ <CAHTn92zw_MaSKWiZGhGFqFYXJxv6kQ+7=XCHbRLim1jhtEsVVQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAJowKgJ8GP4Ykzn5dMHZ7wsE04YmpOLgTpdc9tgfVng0qB0Jjg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <YqVfTU0M7XN8+Ybu@petertodd.org>
+ <Pwr9EFLSv2rU7nXRzqFuw2LPxpFo22g_qYy4reQzpMuSlgRzTG536uLjZCc9sI43olReGMA7BFgjnxJGKtZNtxU7qRy_-YYOnz6TeMy4h8Q=@protonmail.com>
+ <Yq77CnxOhr615ip8@petertodd.org>
+ <CAAxiura7-TTUOg=vuH8q+orX+LVED74f+NvaYqVve3j--CjTMQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAJowKgL=nVwnUrpSKmnsTxOfk3DEEZL7awG=HypyCXSR3XCLxg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CALeFGL0CQC4_swZTt-=sbe=ZiCmRthZghGDtrWFx5bQCBeOJcg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <YrS8URqD/BW4UrP0@petertodd.org>
+ <CAGpPWDb=dF4-D5GKb2NoEcdW6TokNQyrwpGVwHJk+0HL43+J1Q@mail.gmail.com>
+In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDb=dF4-D5GKb2NoEcdW6TokNQyrwpGVwHJk+0HL43+J1Q@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Kate Salazar <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail.com>
+Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:44:11 +0200
+Message-ID: <CAHiDt8A+uQpY7jJ56hnk929yzwLw-DOT721cj1aUpGVzwmz2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
+To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>,
+ Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e8b9c05e293d683"
+X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:51:25 +0000
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
+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: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:44:26 -0000
+
+--0000000000001e8b9c05e293d683
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
+
+Hey
+
+On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:43 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
+bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+
+> @Eric
+> > People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance
+> of barter costs.
+>
+> I'm very confident you're incorrect that holders don't receive any benefit
+> and you're certainly not correct that every spend is receiving the same
+> benefit. As I'm sure you're aware, one of the primary components of a
+> currency's value and purpose is as a store of value. Storing value happens
+> while you're holding it, not while you're spending it. Consider the
+> following two scenarios: one person holds onto 10 bitcoin for 10 years and
+> then spends those 10 bitcoins in some way in 2 transactions. Another person
+> spends 4 bitcoins to buy something, then sells it for 6 bitcoins, and then
+> buys something else for that 6 bitcoins and then never acquires any bitcoin
+> for 10 years.
+>
+> Both people spent 10 bitcoins over 2 transactions. Over that 10 year
+> period, only one of those people utilized bitcoin's utility as a store of
+> value. Who benefited more from their use of bitcoin?
+>
+> > Those who never transact, never realize any benefit.
+>
+> While that's true, its not relevant and basically a red herring. You need
+> to compare those who transact often and rarely hold, to those who hold a
+> lot but rarely transact. Its not helpful to consider those who throw their
+> bitcoin into a bottomless pit and never retrieve them.
+>
+> On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make sense to
+> have "a balance of fees to that effect". I think doing that would be
+> technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an enormous
+> benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and the
+> consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok could
+> have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult
+> convincing the community would be in the first place). There's also the
+> economic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect which
+> should also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is interesting
+> to consider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that
+> monetary inflation causes, because that distortion is a result of monetary
+> devaluation (which decaying utxos would be a form of). Then again, maybe in
+> this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction -
+> correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I'm
+> stream-of-consciousnessing a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth the
+> trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security costs to
+> include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how
+> bitcoin was designed, I might advocate for it.
+>
+
+Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older utxos, or from
+all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at the
+blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doing.
+This is not consensus, it's policy. It's not a technology problem, it's
+solved above in the social layer.
+
+If this kind of problem torments anyone, maybe miner decentralization hard
+forks are worth looking at, some already exist.
+
+
+>
+> @Peter
+> > demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties.
+>
+> The distortion of incentives is identical, however there is also the
+> effect it has on a currency's property as a useful unit of account.
+> Decaying utxos would mean that it would contribute substantially less to
+> market prices needing to change. I suspect this effect would be bordering
+> on negligible tho.
+>
+> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:17 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
+> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+>
+>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Keagan McClelland via
+>> bitcoin-dev wrote:
+>> > > The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportional
+>> to
+>> > the
+>> > value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren't reliably created the
+>> value
+>> > of
+>> > *all* BTC goes down. It doesn't make sense for the entire cost of that
+>> > security
+>> > to be paid for on a per-tx basis. And there's a high chance paying for
+>> it
+>> > on a
+>> > per-tx basis won't work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.
+>> >
+>> > FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply
+>> as a
+>> > means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe
+>> deeply
+>> > important. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the security of the
+>> chain
+>> > should not be solely the responsibility of transactors. We realize the
+>> > value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriate
+>> for
+>> > there to be a balance of fees to that effect. While inflation may be
+>> > simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it
+>> > would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was
+>> necessary) to
+>> > keep the supply fixed and have people's utxo balances decay, at least at
+>> > the level of the UX.
+>>
+>> Demurrage makes protocols like Lightning much more complex, and isn't
+>> compatible with existing implementations. While demurrage could in theory
+>> be
+>> implemented in a soft-fork by forcing txs to contain an output with the
+>> demurrage-taxed amount, spending to a pool of future mining fees, I really
+>> don't think it's practical to actually do that.
+>>
+>> Anyway, demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties.
+>> They're
+>> both a tax on savings. The only difference is the way that tax is
+>> implemented.
+>>
+>> --
+>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
+>> _______________________________________________
+>> 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
+>
+
+--0000000000001e8b9c05e293d683
+Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hey</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><=
+div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:43 AM Billy=
+ Tetrud via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
+tion.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><bl=
+ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
+t:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@Eric<=
+br></div>&gt;=C2=A0
+
+People who transact are realizing the benefit of money - the avoidance of b=
+arter costs.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>I&#39;m very confident you&#39;re inc=
+orrect that=C2=A0holders=C2=A0don&#39;t receive any benefit and you&#39;re =
+certainly not correct that=C2=A0every=C2=A0spend is receiving the same bene=
+fit. As I&#39;m sure you&#39;re aware, one of the primary components of a c=
+urrency&#39;s value and purpose is as a store of=C2=A0value. Storing value =
+happens while you&#39;re holding it, not while you&#39;re spending it. Cons=
+ider the following two scenarios: one person holds onto 10 bitcoin for 10 y=
+ears and then spends those 10 bitcoins in=C2=A0some way in 2 transactions. =
+Another person spends 4 bitcoins to buy something, then sells it for 6 bitc=
+oins, and then buys something else for that 6 bitcoins and then never acqui=
+res any bitcoin for 10 years.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Both people sp=
+ent 10 bitcoins over 2 transactions. Over that 10 year period, only one of =
+those people utilized bitcoin&#39;s utility as a store of value. Who benefi=
+ted more from their use of bitcoin?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>&gt; Tho=
+se who never transact, never realize any benefit.</div><div><br></div><div>=
+While that&#39;s true, its not relevant and basically a red herring. You ne=
+ed to compare those who transact often and rarely hold, to those who hold a=
+ lot but rarely transact. Its=C2=A0not helpful to consider those who throw =
+their bitcoin into a bottomless pit and never retrieve them.</div><div><br>=
+</div><div>On an idealistic level, I agree with Keagan that it would make s=
+ense to have &quot;a balance of fees to that effect&quot;. I think doing th=
+at would be technically/economically optimal. However, I think there is an =
+enormous benefit to having a cultural aversion to monetary inflation and th=
+e consequences of convincing the bitcoin community that inflation is ok cou=
+ld have unintended negative consequences (not to mention how difficult conv=
+incing the community would be in the first place). There&#39;s also the eco=
+nomic distortion that inflation causes that has a negative effect which sho=
+uld also be considered. The idea of decaying utxo value is interesting to c=
+onsider, but it would not solve the economic distortion that monetary=C2=A0=
+inflation causes,=C2=A0because that=C2=A0distortion is a result of monetary=
+ devaluation (which decaying=C2=A0utxos would be a form of). Then again, ma=
+ybe in this case the distortion of inflation would actually be a correction=
+ - correcting for the externality of benefit received by holders. I&#39;m s=
+tream-of-consciousnessing=C2=A0a bit, but anyways, I suspect its not worth =
+the trouble to perfect the distribution of bitcoin blockchain security cost=
+s to include holders. Tho, if I were to go back in time and influence how b=
+itcoin was designed, I might advocate for it.</div></div></blockquote><div>=
+<br></div><div>Pool operators are free to request larger fees from older ut=
+xos, or from all utxos, or from newer utxos, at their judgement, looking at=
+ the blockspace demand census and at what the other pool operators are doin=
+g. This is not consensus, it&#39;s policy. It&#39;s not a technology proble=
+m, it&#39;s solved above in the social layer.</div><div><br></div><div>If t=
+his kind of problem torments anyone, maybe miner decentralization hard fork=
+s are worth looking at, some already=C2=A0exist.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blo=
+ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
+:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></d=
+iv><div>@Peter<br></div><div>&gt; demurrage and inflation have identical ec=
+onomic properties.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>The distortion of incenti=
+ves is identical, however there is also the effect it has on a currency&#39=
+;s property as a useful unit of account. Decaying utxos would mean that it =
+would contribute substantially less to market prices needing to change. I s=
+uspect this effect would be bordering on negligible tho.=C2=A0</div></div><=
+br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu,=
+ Jun 23, 2022 at 2:17 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
+itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
+inuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
+" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);=
+padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Keagan McClella=
+nd via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
+&gt; &gt; The PoW security of Bitcoin benefits all Bitcoin users, proportio=
+nal to<br>
+&gt; the<br>
+&gt; value of BTC they hold; if Bitcoin blocks aren&#39;t reliably created =
+the value<br>
+&gt; of<br>
+&gt; *all* BTC goes down. It doesn&#39;t make sense for the entire cost of =
+that<br>
+&gt; security<br>
+&gt; to be paid for on a per-tx basis. And there&#39;s a high chance paying=
+ for it<br>
+&gt; on a<br>
+&gt; per-tx basis won&#39;t work anyway due to lack of consistent demand.<b=
+r>
+&gt; <br>
+&gt; FWIW I prefer the demurrage route. Having something with finite supply=
+ as a<br>
+&gt; means of measuring economic activity is unprecedented and I believe de=
+eply<br>
+&gt; important. I&#39;m sympathetic to the argument that the security of th=
+e chain<br>
+&gt; should not be solely the responsibility of transactors. We realize the=
+<br>
+&gt; value of money on receipt, hold *and* spend and it would be appropriat=
+e for<br>
+&gt; there to be a balance of fees to that effect. While inflation may be<b=
+r>
+&gt; simpler to implement (just chop off the last few halvings), I think it=
+<br>
+&gt; would be superior (on the assumption that such a hodl tax was necessar=
+y) to<br>
+&gt; keep the supply fixed and have people&#39;s utxo balances decay, at le=
+ast at<br>
+&gt; the level of the UX.<br>
+<br>
+Demurrage makes protocols like Lightning much more complex, and isn&#39;t<b=
+r>
+compatible with existing implementations. While demurrage could in theory b=
+e<br>
+implemented in a soft-fork by forcing txs to contain an output with the<br>
+demurrage-taxed amount, spending to a pool of future mining fees, I really<=
+br>
+don&#39;t think it&#39;s practical to actually do that.<br>
+<br>
+Anyway, demurrage and inflation have identical economic properties. They&#3=
+9;re<br>
+both a tax on savings. The only difference is the way that tax is implement=
+ed.<br>
+<br>
+-- <br>
+<a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
+s://petertodd.org</a> &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org"=
+ rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
+_______________________________________________<br>
+bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
+bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
+rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
+man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
+</blockquote></div>
+_______________________________________________<br>
+bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
+bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
+rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
+man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
+</blockquote></div></div>
+
+--0000000000001e8b9c05e293d683--
+