diff options
| author | Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> | 2015-08-15 15:16:10 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-15 22:16:37 +0000 |
| commit | 34a0fbc3f00c1b571af1ebea86c7168069610e53 (patch) | |
| tree | a379c034f0af34795a7a2e572f88eeeeddf47318 | |
| parent | 87e422fcfa1c23dacd8ea66fe445ffaf0f28ce89 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-34a0fbc3f00c1b571af1ebea86c7168069610e53.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-34a0fbc3f00c1b571af1ebea86c7168069610e53.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
| -rw-r--r-- | 68/ba75b69ba1f94b3cb6b3108c688961ac3d4dc0 | 456 |
1 files changed, 456 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/68/ba75b69ba1f94b3cb6b3108c688961ac3d4dc0 b/68/ba75b69ba1f94b3cb6b3108c688961ac3d4dc0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3e25d8341 --- /dev/null +++ b/68/ba75b69ba1f94b3cb6b3108c688961ac3d4dc0 @@ -0,0 +1,456 @@ +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 338DF4D3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:37 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com + [209.85.192.178]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2562D109 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:36 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by pdrh1 with SMTP id h1so42550304pdr.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -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=J8A+X4ArPMWpInxOHpHQEKBo0ytMksGXj0JleMCBzy0=; + b=le8Wc/QBNGU8VWijWV8ZMwpiqpHL09wIy4EEqRQzNH8i5VQiPBpIwxEvUhP7rLa8hb + epk9HBpCgk83X57KSDMCxHgToi8VC2/1RVe8ykNkfqLiJiz+1BtXlMGXvZ6dWeusHQtd + Ulq4L4XKvm9Qax7f5biNRcoCmIjuS7Iddn8e//a89quUO38+HRkmjSRqlwHXjFIvT0Ru + 3qoyuReD2i2XgG+CIVUM7qloGalXirRLIKgvzzH+4UR1P5VZZuSWQcwYuIg03O1fOp1b + qoneSubu0ncHy4fJsAoXM1MYLWLJgEfOefaEswZBiky5WPWsThnifoC5uPpiC93p8b8b + iipg== +X-Received: by 10.70.65.5 with SMTP id t5mr103760279pds.16.1439676995874; + Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -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 + rd8sm9784945pdb.10.2015.08.15.15.16.11 + (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT) +Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) +Content-Type: multipart/signed; + boundary="Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C"; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 +X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 +From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:10 -0700 +Message-Id: <CC1B6D0E-F9D5-422B-980D-C589CDC00612@gmail.com> +References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com> + <E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com> + <CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com> +To: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com> +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,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] Bitcoin XT 0.11A +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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:37 -0000 + + +--Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; + boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7" + + +--Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Content-Type: text/plain; + charset=utf-8 + + +> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev = +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>=20 +> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, = +consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status = +quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER = +CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against = +network consensus will be severely punished with complete loss of = +income. + +I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should = +have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking about merely = +forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a = +ledger representing real assets that real people are holding=E2=80=A6and = +I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk of permanent ledger forks = +far outweighs whatever benefits any change in the protocol might bring. = +And this would be true even if there were unanimous agreement that the = +change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case) but the = +deployment mechanism could still break things. + +If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change = +first, just to test deployability. + +> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods = +that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems = +like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may = +change without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible = +hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check. + +Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a = +far less contentious change first + +> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the = +most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a = +company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially = +limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a = +blatant conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them = +to either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves = +from the blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would = +end with Bitcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes. + +For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of = +other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the = +concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be = +motivated primarily by profit motives. + +It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the = +default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change = +falls on those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent = +ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might = +bring. + +> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. = +Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the = +lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you = +think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain = +transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6 + +Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and = +sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a = +look at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to = +make any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and = +my agenda in this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but= + with all due respect, I do not think you properly understand them at = +all. + +> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and = +Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by = +outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. = +It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is = +already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. + +I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people want = +to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is = +being pushed that is deeply problematic. + +> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev = +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = +<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: +> You deeply disappoint me, Mike. +>=20 +> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions = +from a great number of people who have published and posted a number of = +articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6you = +also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions = +of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were = +fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original = +=E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question. +>=20 +> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive = +crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is = +proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, = +as several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an = +open source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - = +there=E2=80=99s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This = +isn=E2=80=99t a democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a = +good number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner = +workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a = +good idea should give you pause. +>=20 +> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for = +the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious = +technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are = +discrediting yourself and hurting your own reputation. +>=20 +>=20 +> - Eric +>=20 +>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev = +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = +<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: +>>=20 +>> Hello, +>>=20 +>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the = +bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from +>>=20 +>> https://bitcoinxt.software/ <https://bitcoinxt.software/> +>>=20 +>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The = +Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and = +many others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix = +things. +>>=20 +>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is = +not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in = +forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure = +everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of = +"manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be = +different from Core (assuming adoption, of course). +>>=20 +>> The article is here: +>>=20 +>> = +https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 = +<https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1> +>>=20 +>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our = +point of view. +>>=20 +>> The manifesto is on the website. +>>=20 +>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is = +no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't = +bite. +>>=20 +>> _______________________________________________ +>> 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> +>=20 +>=20 +> _______________________________________________ +> 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> +>=20 +>=20 +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev + + +--Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7 +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 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev = +<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:</div><br = +class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" = +class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"">What are you so afraid of, = +Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is reached around larger = +blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain for now. Network = +consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, = +and those that go against network consensus will be severely punished = +with complete loss of income.<br = +class=3D""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = +class=3D""></div>I fully agree that core developers are not the only = +people who should have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not = +talking about merely forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99re = +talking about forking a ledger representing real assets that real people = +are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk = +of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change in = +the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there were = +unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS NOT = +in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break = +things.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>If anything we should = +attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change first, just to test = +deployability.</div><div><div><br class=3D""></div><blockquote = +type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div = +class=3D""><div class=3D"">I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some = +sort of Bitcoin Gods that can hold up any change that they happen to = +disagree with. It seems like the core devs are scared to death that the = +bitcoin network may change without their blessing, so they go on and on = +about how terrible hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep = +core devs in check.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = +class=3D""></div><div>Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork = +mechanism and test it with a far less contentious change first</div><br = +class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = +dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Despite significant past = +technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most vocal opponents to a = +reasonable blocksize increase work for a company (Blockstream) that = +stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the blocksize. The = +whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of interest, = +the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from = +Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize = +debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, = +but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br = +class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = +class=3D""></div><div>For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. = +Neither do a bunch of other people who have published a number of = +concerns. Very few of the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical = +community seem to be motivated primarily by profit = +motives.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>It should also be pointed = +out that *not* making drastic changes is the default consensus = +policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change falls on those who = +want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger forks far = +outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.</div><br = +class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = +dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Personally, I think miners should = +give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that they are in = +direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for fees. = +Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB = +blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more = +on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6<br = +class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div>Miners= + are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains = +- these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look at these = +ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make any such = +claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my agenda in = +this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all = +due respect, I do not think you properly understand them at all.<br = +class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = +class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">The longer this = +debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because = +the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces and should = +not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also interesting to = +note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks = +BIP100 style. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = +class=3D""></div>I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that = +some people want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which = +this change is being pushed that is deeply problematic.</div><div><br = +class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = +dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = +class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, = +Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr" = +class=3D""><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +target=3D"_blank" = +class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> = +wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 = +0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div = +style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" class=3D""><div class=3D"">You deeply = +disappoint me, Mike.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = +class=3D"">Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out = +positions from a great number of people who have published and posted a = +number of articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical = +concerns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading = +into the intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, = +before we even were fully aware of many things we now know that bring = +the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><div = +class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I ask of you, as a = +civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite your = +protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is proposing a = +radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as several of = +us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open source = +project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99= +s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a = +democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of = +the people most intimately familiar with the inner workings of = +Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a good idea = +should give you pause.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = +class=3D"">Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political = +football=E2=80=A6for the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. = +Despite your obvious technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you = +have them) you are discrediting yourself and hurting your own = +reputation.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">- Eric</div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite"= + class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via = +bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>= + wrote:</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" = +class=3D"">Hello,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">As = +promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger = +blocks patch set. You can get it from</div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D""> <a = +href=3D"https://bitcoinxt.software/" target=3D"_blank" = +class=3D"">https://bitcoinxt.software/</a><br class=3D""></div><div = +class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I feel sad that it's = +come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core project has = +drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel are = +important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.</div><div = +class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Forking is a natural = +thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the first and won't = +be the last project to go through this. Often in forks, people say there = +was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is crystal clear = +I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to describe why this = +is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core (assuming = +adoption, of course).</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = +class=3D"">The article is here:</div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D""> <a = +href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1= +" target=3D"_blank" = +class=3D"">https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d2= +2c1</a><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = +class=3D"">It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from = +our point of view.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = +class=3D"">The manifesto is on the website.</div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I say to all developers on this list: = +if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin = +users, come join us. We don't bite.</div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div></div> +_______________________________________________<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" = +target=3D"_blank" = +class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= +/a><br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div><br = +class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br class=3D""> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D""> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +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""> +<br class=3D""></blockquote></div><br = +class=3D""></div></div></div></div></div> +_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev = +mailing list<br class=3D""><a = +href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br = +class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= +br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>= + +--Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7-- + +--Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C +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 + +iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVz7oqAAoJEJNAI64YFENU8BoQALUK1RjVlfUvj4jcr9iaOnEj +CoFyQNhk95e3RaAKPYAWSgL1BI1C4eON1ynlgFg2u3pV7UZCCG2LMQhYEAA+IcXg +eDuozEaZq3kO/7sUuBkV8WX4wJh9uzOLY0Zix5m5kUskO5FHKL0mfpByClSg8U51 +DYPnSLsxWmA9PmOcZCY20r+SGBopbpzsxC4jbV3eMWSvj5ln7+CPTTPLIRzyROVz +RVRxof9Irf0ekmM5MpH6svsnhp1tonVsFUw8s/olTuFLtFoP3/+LJ4te773ekFHp +SQSyFX1fnWn2jHKe5lr9b276vtJpr8nmeqTLOLZXFyjLPSsr2kYqJ8ADj7JyfZBw +mzzvWvL6X6JprBwRn2KjIXJZZffx1nnL7RcgZVvu8wZ7kWNIDcfLJGYMUL5a4QGL +YfpNSqYOVaAisSndR5l8+d/BdQQIDinEV3TgqSyYcj4RNG3E2T18TTo81Z6mAhBj +C2TSbPStcM5gyTfT068ADkpmUdN7jJAtZcODdWdUvAuEprP/EMEjHeGYQZwn2YI3 +diSkpjDACuiFI5waOKuNtu3jZRIaao6n61glxlQTTVEiC5sswdWrkTaoSVhVpHCO +7GJJFa3jQLlEG0DXyGz4sex3iBziYbEWMBju4zU176BXCpc1e3OLCo8IZGFb8wb1 +SB0G6dVqgwD1NyR+EoBa +=To5Q +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C-- + |