Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 14:14:13 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Garlo Nicon <garlonicon@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <24cd7816-1912-41f9-a6ef-f740801245e2n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <3f7d43bd-af9e-4af5-860a-223504bb4fcan@googlegroups.com>
References: <Zpk7EYgmlgPP3Y9D@petertodd.org>
 <18fc443d-c347-4a84-94fe-81308ae20b76n@googlegroups.com>
 <Zpm73WHBNIkkIT0Y@petertodd.org>
 <CALZpt+HJvBXM_geK7JC8umrt1goq8bc+pnY0mk+o+r_+bjrtew@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zpp6U00Mp7Z/bOej@petertodd.org>
 <4d950527-4430-49f2-8e38-3755bc58e301n@googlegroups.com>
 <4f7eddff-9e2d-4beb-bcc6-832584cb939d@achow101.com>
 <2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn@googlegroups.com>
 <a8eac5f2-b85a-434f-868e-eba7fd2558c6@achow101.com>
 <3f7d43bd-af9e-4af5-860a-223504bb4fcan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: A "Free" Relay Attack Taking Advantage of The
 Lack of Full-RBF In Core
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_49950_456227870.1722491878263"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_49950_456227870.1722491878263
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_49951_646384883.1722491878263"

------=_Part_49951_646384883.1722491878263
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Here is a last resort solution by launching this attack in production.

I hope you will pick some testnet, for example testnet3 or testnet4, or=20
even signet, instead of launching it on mainnet. Also because test networks=
=20
are better suited for file sharing scenarios, because if coins are=20
worthless, and there are no real transactions, then pushing data is the=20
only purpose of such network. Probably, doing it on testnet4 is the easiest=
=20
target, because of 50 tBTC reward (which means: 5 GB spamming ability per=
=20
block, if you use 1 sat/vB).

poniedzia=C5=82ek, 22 lipca 2024 o 14:07:41 UTC+2 Anonymous User napisa=C5=
=82(a):

> I came from some twitter discussion so I think this thread is trending. I=
=20
> think we need to figure a way out onward.=20
>
> Here is a last resort solution by launching this attack in production. We=
=20
> should avoid making this last resort solution, but from what Peter Todd=
=20
> said, below seems completely practical.
> Please treat it as story reading and do not overthink that this is the wa=
y=20
> to go.
>
> - a few people in the list form a group and fork bitcoin core and apply=
=20
> the patch from Peter Todd
> - work with a few miners to massively perform the free relay attacks and=
=20
> other mempool related attacks in an effort to force mining pools and mine=
rs=20
> to switch from bitcoin core into the fork in order for their nodes to=20
> continue running in a healthy manner
> - build a free service for file transfer or VPN taking advantage of rbf i=
n=20
> the Bitcoin network and make it a public good that millions of users can=
=20
> use, causing most of the mempool transactions to be conflicting (due to=
=20
> different implementations of rbf) and therefore wallets have to eventuall=
y=20
> stop broadcasting transactions to bitcoin core nodes (which could be usin=
g=20
> a completely new list of seed nodes, disabling the existing seed node=20
> list), and non-bitcoin-core nodes, in order to have more healthy=20
> transaction flows and mempool data sharing, would start node-shopping by=
=20
> disconnecting themselves from bitcoin core nodes and refusing to be their=
=20
> peers=20
> - core is forced to find a way onward, or the core gives up and archives=
=20
> the bitcoin core repo
>
> The damage is probably just a few days of slower transaction processing,=
=20
> much smaller than the price spike caused by ordinals last year.=20
>
> Democracy starts with people having different opinions that DO NOT need t=
o=20
> reconcile. So, it is not about how we get different people in this mail=
=20
> list, or the non-public security list, to achieve the same opinions, like=
=20
> whether full RBF is needed. It is about how Bitcoin can allow two groups =
of=20
> people that have fundamentally different opinions and are unwilling and=
=20
> impossible to reconcile. We can have 5-10 security disclosure mail lists =
by=20
> different groups of people, and good-faith vulnerability reporters can=20
> choose to exclusively report the bugs to some groups that the reporters=
=20
> feel to be knowledgeable and responsive and, importantly, have the capaci=
ty=20
> and the motivation to work on it.=20
>
> I feel bad for Peter Todd. If I were him, I wouldn't report the bug. I=20
> would sell the bug because I got nothing in return, but probably more=20
> jealousy or more retaliation for being the only person serious about an=
=20
> issue.=20
> Btw, Peter already has a fork.=20
>
> Ethereum has great software development process as well as its ecosystem.=
=20
> Smart contracts get heavily audited not because people care about securit=
y.=20
> It is because North Korea has successfully stolen probably hundreds of=20
> millions of dollars from different projects and even causing some project=
s=20
> to fall apart. This is in essence similar to, if one day Bitcoin has a=20
> memory exploit issue that causes a massive amount of miners to lose coins=
=20
> that they own, and the network again needs to decide whether to do a hard=
=20
> fork, that is the time when we will be discussing if stopping development=
=20
> in C/C++ and limiting Bitcoin core development to Rust and Rust only are=
=20
> the way forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Anonymous user, as the floppy disk guy recommends this might be the best=
=20
> way to engage in the mailing list onward
>
> I strongly encourage people to try engaging in this email list=20
> anonymously. It feels great to say things out loud without worrying about=
=20
> retaliation on unrelated matters. Also, this should be permitted. We stil=
l=20
> don't know who Satoshi is. If I were Satoshi, I probably also wouldn't=20
> report a bug I know.=20
>
> On Sunday, July 21, 2024 at 1:49:10=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Ava Chow wrote:
>
>> On 07/20/2024 10:06 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:=20
>> > "Naive", as saying this is the _Bitcoin Core_ project list only can=20
>> only=20
>> > provoke blind=20
>> > spot among the list members if the security issues are either affectin=
g=20
>> > old part of=20
>> > the codebases that younger members have less experiences with (some=20
>> > parts like consensus=20
>> > or block-relay are modified only every 5 years) or novel factors from=
=20
>> > upstream or downstream=20
>> > (e.g the internet networking stack or implications on deployed contrac=
t=20
>> > protocols like=20
>> > lightning). On both the former and latter criterias, I think Peter=20
>> > overly meets the bar.=20
>>
>> Peter was not the only "senior" person on the security list. Obviously I=
=20
>> will not disclose non-public information, but certainly there are people=
=20
>> on the security list who are just as, if not more, senior than Peter.=20
>>
>> Furthermore, the "old parts" still do get changed, and someone who no=20
>> longer actively contributes to the project is more likely to be unaware=
=20
>> of how the code actually works today, even if they are familiar with=20
>> components that change infrequently.=20
>>
>> > When you've big sh*t hitting the fan like inflation bugs or level DB=
=20
>> > 2013 unexpected fork you=20
>> > prefer have experts with a decade of experience to collaborate with,=
=20
>> and=20
>> > sharing the same cultural=20
>> > and ethical norms of the active contributors evaluated by numbers on=
=20
>> > commits on the last single-digit=20
>> > years.=20
>>
>> Not being on the list does not preclude him from being consulted if the=
=20
>> need arises.=20
>>
>> With the two examples you provide, I am not aware of Peter being=20
>> actively involved in the resolution of both of those, whereas there are=
=20
>> current members of the list who were.=20
>>
>>
>> In general though, it is not clear to me how it was beneficial to have=
=20
>> Peter on the security list, nor how not having him is directly harmful.=
=20
>> In the 2 years that I have been on the security list, I was unaware that=
=20
>> Peter was a recipient until shortly before he was removed. My=20
>> understanding is that others who have been on the list longer than me=20
>> were also unaware.=20
>>
>> Ava=20
>>
>> >=20
>> > I'll repropose Peter admission on the security list mailing list in th=
e=20
>> > coming weeks by opening an=20
>> > issue on the bitcoin-meta repository, once this current mailing list=
=20
>> > thread has slowed down a bit,=20
>> > or at least the technical analysis has been dissociated from the=20
>> > proceedings which have all been=20
>> > bundle in a big message. In my very personal opinion, I still trust=20
>> more=20
>> > Peter competence and experience=20
>> > than some other people I know who are on the security mailing list.=20
>> >=20
>> > All that said I appreciate your answer and I'm satisfied from the=20
>> > personal role you've have played=20
>> > in the matter with, and be reassured I'll keep you among the recipient=
=20
>> > of future security issues with=20
>> > a potential impact on bitcoin core that I might find or be aware off.=
=20
>> >=20
>> > Best,=20
>> > Antoine=20
>> > ots hash:=20
>> db441b51684ad3a6897f67d42c74ccfcb9a4ffed40d4bdbe30a2edd867ccdd54=20
>> >=20
>> > Le samedi 20 juillet 2024 =C3=A0 01:50:25 UTC+1, Ava Chow a =C3=A9crit=
 :=20
>> >=20
>> > On 07/19/2024 07:58 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:=20
>> > > As said in one my previous email, I'm still curious about achow101=
=20
>> > > explaining publicly=20
>> > > why you have been kicked-out of the bitcoin-security mailing=20
>> > list, when=20
>> > > you were certainly=20
>> > > more senior than achow101 in matters of base-layer security=20
>> > issues or=20
>> > > even hard technical=20
>> > > issues like consensus interactions (e.g bip65). I'll re-iterate my=
=20
>> > > respect towards achow101=20
>> > > as a maintainer from years of collaboration, though this is a topic=
=20
>> > > worthy of an answer.=20
>> >=20
>> > I am not the one that removed Peter from the mailing list, nor do I=20
>> > even=20
>> > have the login(s) to do so.=20
>> >=20
>> > There was a discussion amongst several members of the security list=20
>> > about who was on the list, and who should be on the list. Given that=
=20
>> > the=20
>> > security list is the _Bitcoin Core_ security list, we determined that=
=20
>> > the people who should be on the list are people who still actively=20
>> > contribute to the project. As Peter Todd no longer actively contribute=
=20
>> > code nor code review to the project, we decided that it didn't make=20
>> > sense to continue to have him on the list.=20
>> >=20
>> > My recollection is that multiple other people were removed from the=20
>> > list=20
>> > for the same reason at the same time.=20
>> >=20
>> > Ava=20
>> >=20
>> > --=20
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20
>> > Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.=20
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send=
=20
>> > an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com=20
>> > <mailto:bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com>.=20
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit=20
>> >=20
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e=
2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com=20
>> <
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e=
2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter>.=20
>>
>>
>>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/24cd7816-1912-41f9-a6ef-f740801245e2n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_49951_646384883.1722491878263
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

&gt; Here is a last resort solution by launching this attack in production.=
<br /><br />I hope you will pick some testnet, for example testnet3 or test=
net4, or even signet, instead of launching it on mainnet. Also because test=
 networks are better suited for file sharing scenarios, because if coins ar=
e worthless, and there are no real transactions, then pushing data is the o=
nly purpose of such network. Probably, doing it on testnet4 is the easiest =
target, because of 50 tBTC reward (which means: 5 GB spamming ability per b=
lock, if you use 1 sat/vB).<br /><br /><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"auto" class=3D"gmail_attr">poniedzia=C5=82ek, 22 lipca 2024 o=C2=A014:0=
7:41 UTC+2 Anonymous User napisa=C5=82(a):<br/></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 2=
04, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div>I came from some twitter discussion so I=
 think this thread is trending. I think we need to figure a way out onward.=
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a last resort solution by launching=
 this attack in production. We should avoid making this last resort solutio=
n, but from what Peter Todd said, below seems completely practical.</div><d=
iv>Please treat it as story reading and do not overthink that this is the w=
ay to go.</div><div><br></div><div>- a few people in the list form a group =
and fork bitcoin core and apply the patch from Peter Todd</div><div>- work =
with a few miners to massively perform the free relay attacks and other mem=
pool related attacks in an effort to force mining pools and miners to switc=
h from bitcoin core into the fork in order for their nodes to continue runn=
ing in a healthy manner</div><div>- build a free service for file transfer =
or VPN taking advantage of rbf in the Bitcoin network and make it a public =
good that millions of users can use, causing most of the mempool transactio=
ns to be conflicting (due to different implementations of rbf) and therefor=
e wallets have to eventually stop broadcasting transactions to bitcoin core=
 nodes (which could be using a completely new list of seed nodes, disabling=
 the existing seed node list), and non-bitcoin-core nodes, in order to have=
 more healthy transaction flows and mempool data sharing, would start node-=
shopping by disconnecting themselves from bitcoin core nodes and refusing t=
o be their peers=C2=A0</div><div>- core is forced to find a way onward, or =
the core gives up and archives the bitcoin core repo</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>The damage is probably just a few days of slower transaction processing,=
 much smaller than the price spike caused by ordinals last year.=C2=A0</div=
><div><br></div><div>Democracy starts with people having different opinions=
 that DO NOT need to reconcile. So, it is not about how we get different pe=
ople in this mail list, or the non-public security list, to achieve the sam=
e opinions, like whether full RBF is needed. It is about how Bitcoin can al=
low two groups of people that have fundamentally different opinions and are=
 unwilling and impossible to reconcile. We can have 5-10 security disclosur=
e mail lists by different groups of people, and good-faith vulnerability re=
porters can choose to exclusively report the bugs to some groups that the r=
eporters feel to be knowledgeable and responsive and, importantly, have the=
 capacity and the motivation to work on it.=C2=A0<br></div><div><br></div><=
div>I feel bad for Peter Todd. If I were him, I wouldn&#39;t report the bug=
. I would sell the bug because I got nothing in return, but probably more j=
ealousy or more=C2=A0retaliation for being the only person serious about an=
 issue.=C2=A0</div><div>Btw, Peter already has a fork.=C2=A0</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Ethereum has great software development process as well as its e=
cosystem. Smart contracts get heavily audited not because people care about=
 security. It is because North Korea has successfully stolen probably hundr=
eds of millions of dollars from different projects and even causing some pr=
ojects to fall apart. This is in essence similar to, if one day Bitcoin has=
 a memory exploit issue that causes a massive amount of miners to lose coin=
s that they own, and the network again needs to decide whether to do a hard=
 fork, that is the time when we will be discussing if stopping development =
in C/C++ and limiting Bitcoin core development to Rust and Rust only are th=
e way forward.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Anonymous user, a=
s the floppy disk guy recommends this might be the best way to engage in th=
e mailing list onward</div><div><br></div><div>I strongly encourage people =
to try engaging in this email list anonymously. It feels great to say thing=
s out loud without worrying about retaliation on unrelated matters. Also, t=
his should be permitted. We still don&#39;t know who Satoshi is. If I were =
Satoshi, I probably also wouldn&#39;t report a bug I know.=C2=A0</div><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sunday,=
 July 21, 2024 at 1:49:10=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Ava Chow wrote:<br></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px soli=
d rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 07/20/2024 10:06 PM, Antoine Riard =
wrote:
<br>&gt; &quot;Naive&quot;, as saying this is the _Bitcoin Core_ project li=
st only can only=20
<br>&gt; provoke blind
<br>&gt; spot among the list members if the security issues are either affe=
cting=20
<br>&gt; old part of
<br>&gt; the codebases that younger members have less experiences with (som=
e=20
<br>&gt; parts like consensus
<br>&gt; or block-relay are modified only every 5 years) or novel factors f=
rom=20
<br>&gt; upstream or downstream
<br>&gt; (e.g the internet networking stack or implications on deployed con=
tract=20
<br>&gt; protocols like
<br>&gt; lightning). On both the former and latter criterias, I think Peter=
=20
<br>&gt; overly meets the bar.
<br>
<br>Peter was not the only &quot;senior&quot; person on the security list. =
Obviously I=20
<br>will not disclose non-public information, but certainly there are peopl=
e=20
<br>on the security list who are just as, if not more, senior than Peter.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, the &quot;old parts&quot; still do get changed, and someon=
e who no=20
<br>longer actively contributes to the project is more likely to be unaware=
=20
<br>of how the code actually works today, even if they are familiar with=20
<br>components that change infrequently.
<br>
<br>&gt; When you&#39;ve big sh*t hitting the fan like inflation bugs or le=
vel DB=20
<br>&gt; 2013 unexpected fork you
<br>&gt; prefer have experts with a decade of experience to collaborate wit=
h, and=20
<br>&gt; sharing the same cultural
<br>&gt; and ethical norms of the active contributors evaluated by numbers =
on=20
<br>&gt; commits on the last single-digit
<br>&gt; years.
<br>
<br>Not being on the list does not preclude him from being consulted if the=
=20
<br>need arises.
<br>
<br>With the two examples you provide, I am not aware of Peter being=20
<br>actively involved in the resolution of both of those, whereas there are=
=20
<br>current members of the list who were.
<br>
<br>
<br>In general though, it is not clear to me how it was beneficial to have=
=20
<br>Peter on the security list, nor how not having him is directly harmful.=
=20
<br>In the 2 years that I have been on the security list, I was unaware tha=
t=20
<br>Peter was a recipient until shortly before he was removed. My=20
<br>understanding is that others who have been on the list longer than me=
=20
<br>were also unaware.
<br>
<br>Ava
<br>
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; I&#39;ll repropose Peter admission on the security list mailing li=
st in the=20
<br>&gt; coming weeks by opening an
<br>&gt; issue on the bitcoin-meta repository, once this current mailing li=
st=20
<br>&gt; thread has slowed down a bit,
<br>&gt; or at least the technical analysis has been dissociated from the=
=20
<br>&gt; proceedings which have all been
<br>&gt; bundle in a big message. In my very personal opinion, I still trus=
t more=20
<br>&gt; Peter competence and experience
<br>&gt; than some other people I know who are on the security mailing list=
.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; All that said I appreciate your answer and I&#39;m satisfied from =
the=20
<br>&gt; personal role you&#39;ve have played
<br>&gt; in the matter with, and be reassured I&#39;ll keep you among the r=
ecipient=20
<br>&gt; of future security issues with
<br>&gt; a potential impact on bitcoin core that I might find or be aware o=
ff.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; Best,
<br>&gt; Antoine
<br>&gt; ots hash: db441b51684ad3a6897f67d42c74ccfcb9a4ffed40d4bdbe30a2edd8=
67ccdd54
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; Le samedi 20 juillet 2024 =C3=A0 01:50:25 UTC+1, Ava Chow a =C3=A9=
crit=C2=A0:
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     On 07/19/2024 07:58 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
<br>&gt;      &gt; As said in one my previous email, I&#39;m still curious =
about achow101
<br>&gt;      &gt; explaining publicly
<br>&gt;      &gt; why you have been kicked-out of the bitcoin-security mai=
ling
<br>&gt;     list, when
<br>&gt;      &gt; you were certainly
<br>&gt;      &gt; more senior than achow101 in matters of base-layer secur=
ity
<br>&gt;     issues or
<br>&gt;      &gt; even hard technical
<br>&gt;      &gt; issues like consensus interactions (e.g bip65). I&#39;ll=
 re-iterate my
<br>&gt;      &gt; respect towards achow101
<br>&gt;      &gt; as a maintainer from years of collaboration, though this=
 is a topic
<br>&gt;      &gt; worthy of an answer.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     I am not the one that removed Peter from the mailing list, nor=
 do I
<br>&gt;     even
<br>&gt;     have the login(s) to do so.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     There was a discussion amongst several members of the security=
 list
<br>&gt;     about who was on the list, and who should be on the list. Give=
n that
<br>&gt;     the
<br>&gt;     security list is the _Bitcoin Core_ security list, we determin=
ed that
<br>&gt;     the people who should be on the list are people who still acti=
vely
<br>&gt;     contribute to the project. As Peter Todd no longer actively co=
ntribute
<br>&gt;     code nor code review to the project, we decided that it didn&#=
39;t make
<br>&gt;     sense to continue to have him on the list.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     My recollection is that multiple other people were removed fro=
m the
<br>&gt;     list
<br>&gt;     for the same reason at the same time.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     Ava
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; --=20
<br>&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=
=20
<br>&gt; Groups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.
<br>&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, =
send=20
<br>&gt; an email to <a rel=3D"nofollow">bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com</a=
>=20
<br>&gt; &lt;mailto:<a rel=3D"nofollow">bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com</a>=
&gt;.
<br>&gt; To view this discussion on the web visit=20
<br>&gt; <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-a=
e72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"=
_blank" data-saferedirecturl=3D"https://www.google.com/url?hl=3Dpl&amp;q=3D=
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7=
c657abn%2540googlegroups.com&amp;source=3Dgmail&amp;ust=3D1722578205166000&=
amp;usg=3DAOvVaw3wB8j44yuSNUDFkj9v-vGf">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/b=
itcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com</a> &lt;=
<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-=
9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Df=
ooter" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" data-saferedirecturl=3D"https://w=
ww.google.com/url?hl=3Dpl&amp;q=3Dhttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoin=
dev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%2540googlegroups.com?utm_medium%3=
Demail%26utm_source%3Dfooter&amp;source=3Dgmail&amp;ust=3D1722578205166000&=
amp;usg=3DAOvVaw2gXoTIf60cx5SsCUWwy2vk">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/b=
itcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medi=
um=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter</a>&gt;.
<br>
<br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/bitcoindev/24cd7816-1912-41f9-a6ef-f740801245e2n%40googlegroups.=
com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msg=
id/bitcoindev/24cd7816-1912-41f9-a6ef-f740801245e2n%40googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br />

------=_Part_49951_646384883.1722491878263--

------=_Part_49950_456227870.1722491878263--