path: root/21/f9f6940e40ae0de34e0eaefaf940a66e5783a5

Return-Path: <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B57FC000A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1460483C5E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:03 +0000 (UTC)
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
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 AHXcdOjU6Z6Q
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DDC083C42
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id u75so37793458ybi.10
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=TSOaz6eq9f0AV2KlF5HdXQAaqK1IwTSS1ahQI0jAwAU=;
 b=PqEk3DtGeOXJlZiS0VRQyDVBzzwbMiVGS8HA+m0YX2Vq58n2vy9JkqJtNPrR33rpAc
 oGjzkHlW/29Rz1bW9o2Oo+vS9dqKgLv5HsTqKgXZDiTKwdO4x/IwHrQCN5vw+mG7du3v
 nAVWJYYOxc7DFpxmPQ9A3sa24zR1FLgVmxZX3i6hQYL69Q82cu7V8qnI+cXhAAIs6FcW
 D4dAIDmx8VGUbcbtNJgKaz9ey2sFyVg6r5gbwyG97dReWGAoP2a0wI4xeghAgG4j/P4f
 MOoRpkjVbHr36RATDXuWr6ppbbcqQ2AVdm+w6C/Wu98mtcN71rnDJJj0N8uE+CNC5A7Q
 J67w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=TSOaz6eq9f0AV2KlF5HdXQAaqK1IwTSS1ahQI0jAwAU=;
 b=mZY07sMQi/N47L+NLo9wH1rReK1Zkz9WTg8DP0BgrMX8r6/+e/OtAUR4ATvH99+iUW
 Wwwh155y5Hms3qmf/zf/R+Z9NVdlVBRapHhyxo2b1bA54kqlGtbwMCuzGD5FCF8Sq0o3
 daBJaUA8NH36tIDgVEZmmT0ZTjNMp7njlF/bwvl/qZKT8bjb5bttxQbPSIxjKlLyVu3L
 kHkTe/NTs657IMoLjoAomGo+/ltoNil985CjTR6zXny4zWaLgQeR7eubF2nf5ZsUtnEl
 IxlbiU3OhGqdJZ+hS2tfPzpD7zA2LnW4eSElMYl1eOCvtfmTKMq9zBklaEX5vD+2Bl/v
 eC5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532HJeeIFsLNCPT1FlkvxaUB2+zeihnuteu1VdGsd+grGZxNX9Ie
 uAQtpFOBAJC59Zks3Que5hvap+1ZeBvdZBmkwqLVWsvQ0QU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxDeFlRXgLhJgygtoYmSahxGUKKnXNyOasHCjoaZDlaxVTINbN1osZxzm1qmg5nW9unLhVjVPd6HHiF2Fn7BOg=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae14:: with SMTP id a20mr287688ybj.129.1615918980312; 
 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YkXXxUdZFYTa1c-F=-FzoQQVtV3GUmE2Okec-zRAD3xS1qAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMnpzfop8ttqjMAKoS37zpQV6WiZfi1Bn+y_e-HaepTiD4Vm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB0O3SVNyr_t23Y0LyT0mSaf6LONFRLYJ8qzO7rcdJFnrGccFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwkSCu=2UOEhzFBzGDHo1c=Ewqsnxp632ke3jdH1ff5WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <PS2P216MB0914F0B05E1AAB48D9A765609D6D9@PS2P216MB0914.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAHAXnDW4PFwtSxvfJ8KXipXX2h2w9824=q9ptsTLkrchac2QXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHAXnDW4PFwtSxvfJ8KXipXX2h2w9824=q9ptsTLkrchac2QXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:22:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YkXXwg1-mRvNukY=a55eJvY8JrXfFy1CoSmNnGX4dwdN5gAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:27:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST
 Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:03 -0000

--000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more details to the
draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.

Best regards, Andrew

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY:
>
>   It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.
>
>   Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to
> smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more
> profitable.
>
>   To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you
> pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.
>
>   The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency,
> but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular
> free markets in energy.
>
>   That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven
> underground.
>
>   Your humble subject etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Good Afternoon,
> >
> > It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current
> cost of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected
> because it is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow
> anyone to mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy
> requirements it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet
> except for the top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without
> affecting the current algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the
> process by which mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized
> payto addresses able to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block
> rewards exist to pay the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms
> are improved if there are some ways that only a subset of miners can
> produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months with four
> groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit mining to
> 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any o
>  ne time. Possibly this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery but
> it is something Bitcoin can handle themselves, and would do better to
> handle than to wait for government intervention as we have seen previously
> in China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banned entirely.
> >
> > KING JAMES HRMH
> > Great British Empire
> >
> > Regards,
> > The Australian
> > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > Wills
> >
> > et al.
> >
> >
> > Willtech
> > www.willtech.com.au
> > www.go-overt.com
> > and other projects
> >
> > earn.com/willtech
> > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> >
> >
> > m. 0487135719
> > f. +61261470192
> >
> >
> > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> > ________________________________
> > From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on
> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
> > To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>
> > Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST
> Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
> >
> > Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my
> cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles
> problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC
> network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do
> want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to
> this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such
> as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very
> least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at
> least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just
> let me know on the preferred format?
> >
> > Best regards, Andrew
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to
> renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the
> most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness
> of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki
> format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?
> >
> > Best regards, Andrew
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ryan and Andrew,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
> >     "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
> >     on | 04 Aug 2015
> >
> >
> > Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining
> market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.  It does
> not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.
> >
> > Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and
> that we should move to other resources.  I would argue that the negative
> externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the
> point is likely moot.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more=
 details to the draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.<d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div=
><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tu=
e, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">MY LORD HIS EXC=
ELLENCY:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.<br=
>
<br>
=C2=A0 Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to<br=
>
smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more<br>
profitable.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you<br>
pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency,<br=
>
but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular<br>
free markets in energy.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven underg=
round.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 Your humble subject etc.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via<br>
bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Good Afternoon,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current c=
ost of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected because=
 it is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow anyone to=
 mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy requirements =
it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet except for the =
top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without affecting the cur=
rent algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the process by which min=
ing can be turned into a lottery with only authorized payto addresses able =
to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block rewards exist to pay=
 the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms are improved if there=
 are some ways that only a subset of miners can produce valid blocks for an=
y given period, say for 12 months with four groups starting three months ap=
art to transition, and maybe limit mining to 50 people per continent to pro=
duce valid blocks at any o<br>
=C2=A0ne time. Possibly this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery b=
ut it is something Bitcoin can handle themselves, and would do better to ha=
ndle than to wait for government intervention as we have seen previously in=
 China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banned entirely.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; KING JAMES HRMH<br>
&gt; Great British Empire<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Regards,<br>
&gt; The Australian<br>
&gt; LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (&amp; HMRH)<br>
&gt; of Hougun Manor &amp; Glencoe &amp; British Empire<br>
&gt; MR. Damian A. James Williamson<br>
&gt; Wills<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; et al.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Willtech<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.willtech.com.au" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" t=
arget=3D"_blank">www.willtech.com.au</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.go-overt.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" targ=
et=3D"_blank">www.go-overt.com</a><br>
&gt; and other projects<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://earn.com/willtech" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" tar=
get=3D"_blank">earn.com/willtech</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson" rel=3D"noreferrer =
noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; m. 0487135719<br>
&gt; f. +61261470192<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this=
 email if misdelivered.<br>
&gt; ________________________________<br>
&gt; From: bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev-bounces@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin=
-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<b=
r>
&gt; Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM<br>
&gt; To: Devrandom &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:c1.devrandom@niftybox.net" target=
=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">c1.devrandom@niftybox.net</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Da=
tastore for Energy Efficient Mining<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my cryptog=
raphy proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles proble=
ms such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC network co=
uld be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do want to do=
 this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to this manner a=
nd can provide useful insight to the community. If things such as bigger bl=
ock height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very least an up=
grade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at least warran=
t some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just let me know o=
n the preferred format?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">loneroass=
ociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi, this isn&#39;t about the energy efficient argument in regards to r=
enewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the most=
 out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness of i=
t, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format =
on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:c1.devra=
ndom@niftybox.net" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">c1.devrandom@niftyb=
ox.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"=
noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.truthcoin.info/=
blog/pow-cheapest/</a><br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work&quot;<b=
r>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining mar=
ket will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does=
 not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities an=
d that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the nega=
tive externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so =
the point is likely moot.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419--