path: root/2b/ce3a215bd5e76c74231d73a98041843800ee12

Return-Path: <sergej@bitrefill.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085A8C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:57:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19C541976
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org C19C541976
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bitrefill.com header.i=@bitrefill.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=b header.b=Q5Ws3pJS
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id cDzxYnolcrBQ
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:57:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 028EF419CC
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 028EF419CC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:57:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id by36so3380524ljb.4
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bitrefill.com; s=b;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=tUj4PyHT9WtVJ5FmB4KM8AZOyvdfrOL8CVzmXK1Hpt0=;
 b=Q5Ws3pJSodqgAqIuyKBrkx43iizDNP7NnXC6P0inmYBOf4P9SoPKN9ZsV8a3fgI/z1
 GA+6yrpYcdNnIeDG9Q61s2NHf79djoKXREie/Lrf2kAgvnqP7QJg7MiGP2iUJm/lfjf7
 tSn2ft5InNTJyNu73DYL8xti9n880Tav8/LpYC0H1QJ7yPuLwIu9kIGwpusjx8B3hJ2e
 U/gJQy/1nUO8x7p7xwwteESKI0StzRMCBKI6wr+kHZzpBcaRJDcNodXB7cOz0SXogb01
 eX8jvOMKS+8KgeVJdKD+L0EXWv6gGFKh1xT0555RR8a1ZEmndJk6D+ZezwD3msmxRs6B
 ZG+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
 :reply-to;
 bh=tUj4PyHT9WtVJ5FmB4KM8AZOyvdfrOL8CVzmXK1Hpt0=;
 b=RDzAak8R1QmicFK6i0qRXrYg5EAGGFnuQfFI1QbMn1qtEHuR7sdlu4fud9n4NalYQd
 c+714T1fV+OpGANlNkZHiElWq4pRK/0F7SsyYDfbIRYF8QO6IqnydYtTec9CoNcZLjYR
 Vz4ZdYfkSJkl+LeRn2qdsByc1Qycbl86ZVoE3ohV2NPnN/kNm6fzLtBLZnioYGquKiJ+
 +TcJoewbynHKZoJVSXolziN/hS+YRs5ck9ZynS6WEK9Uze75geNBWJg2wiPExnuPxrGC
 BhrfXbg66tWlmJAUNz0wstBlAAOV5KSrT0ftgayH847BbWNCGDifjaw647MF8tYRqNBT
 kyAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1Rei7GwsaoxDZRU0uD7gScXkOtXd1gyx6pPILLpDyoT0IbG4fC
 kSFVUC44ynq8CaBUDXbeK08sLj9oZ4ySvnrsBzL6aw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7dd1B9TPVLaHsmHy2wT6NbO1G6qbyBGB7Cnymxlz+laCOK9kEKNPgEnYayNl5PoWTbSYJqemxeqjQpvSqQDdw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:994e:0:b0:26e:8df5:3699 with SMTP id
 r14-20020a2e994e000000b0026e8df53699mr6841548ljj.113.1666353422819; Fri, 21
 Oct 2022 04:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABZBVTC5kh7ca3KhVkFPdQjnsPhP4Kun1k3K6cPkarrjUiTJpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABZBVTCgiQFtxEyeOU=-SGDQUDthyy7sOgPwiT+OVi35LVivyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1D3OkdsCq2pLduG@erisian.com.au>
 <CABZBVTBupMcBbOUtLbMaEmAiWGsMwisNW+k+bTUJGsUad2=ZZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1Gocf216O+yKqqS@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <Y1Gocf216O+yKqqS@erisian.com.au>
From: Sergej Kotliar <sergej@bitrefill.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:56:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CABZBVTAXG34BgyGtjR3Zm42ZYvTOpHRm5j79-Tr8nnAYfEpuSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d67d0005eb8a230c"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:11:23 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Opt-in full-RBF] Zero-conf apps in immediate
	danger
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: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:57:08 -0000

--000000000000d67d0005eb8a230c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:

> So, what I'm hearing is:
>
>  * lightning works great, but is still pretty small
>  * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF
>  * opt-in RBF is a pain for two reasons:
>     - people don't like that it's not treated as zeroconf
>     - the risk of fiat/BTC exchange rate changes between
>       now and when the tx actually confirms is worrying
>       even if it hasn't caused real problems yet
>
> This is about right yes


> Maybe it would be productive to explore this opt-in RBF part a bit
> more? ie, see if "we" can come up with better answers to some question
> along the lines of:
>
>  "how can we make on-chain payments for goods priced in fiat work well
>   for payees that opt-in to RBF?"
>
> That seems like the sort of thing that's better solved by a collaboration
> between wallet devs and merchant devs (and protocol devs?), rather than
> just one or the other?
>
> Is that something that we could talk about here? Or maybe it's better
> done via an optech workgroup or something?
>

Agreed, more work is needed in the regard and we're happy to participate in
any efforts to make things better. It's not like we _want_ to be against
the core dev roadmap :)


> If "we'll credit your account in BTC, then work out the USD coversion
> and deduct that for your purchase, then you can do whatever you like
> with any remaining BTC from your on-chain payment" is the idea, maybe we
> should just roll with that design, but make it more decentralised: have
> the initial payment setup a lightning channel between the customer and
> the merchant with the BTC (so it's not custodial), but do some magic to
> allow USD amounts to be transferred over it (Taro? something oracle based
> so that both parties are confident a fair exchange rate will be used?).
>
> Maybe that particular idea is naive, but having an actual problem to
> solve seems more constructive than just saying "we want rbf" "but we
> want zeroconf" all the time?
>

Don't think it would solve any of the issues even if the above could
technically work, which it can't, simply because wallets that can only do
dump onchain payments are unlikely to be able to implement a scheme like
this.


> > > > Currently Lightning is somewhere around 15% of our total bitcoin
> > > > payments.
> > > So, based on last year's numbers, presumably that makes your bitcoin
> > > payments break down as something like:
> > >    5% txs are on-chain and seem shady and are excluded from zeroconf
> > >   15% txs are lightning
> > >   20% txs are on-chain but signal rbf and are excluded from zeroconf
> > >   60% txs are on-chain and seem fine for zeroconf
> > Numbers are right. Shady is too strong a word,
>
> Heh, fair enough.
>
> So the above suggests 25% of payments already get a sub-par experience,
> compared to what you'd like them to have (which sucks, but if you're
> trying to reinvent both money and payments, maybe isn't surprising). And
> going full rbf would bump that from 25% to 85%, which would be pretty
> terrible.
>
> > RBF is a strictly worse UX as proven by anyone
> > accepting bitcoin payments at scale.
>
> So let's make it better? Building bitcoin businesses on the lie that
> unconfirmed txs are safe and won't be replaced is going to bite us
> eventually; focussing on trying to push that back indefinitely is just
> going to make everyone less prepared when it eventually happens.
>

Sure. The question is if we "make it better" first or if we standardize on
that which works worse first.


> > > > For me
> > > > personally it would be an easier discussion to have when Lightning
> is at
> > > > 80%+ of all bitcoin transactions.
> > > Can you extrapolate from the numbers you've seen to estimate when that
> > > might be, given current trends?
> > Not sure, it might be exponential growth, and the next 60% of Lightning
> > growth happen faster than the first 15%. Hard to tell. But we're likely
> > talking years here..
>
> Okay? Two years is very different from 50 years, and at the moment there's
> not really any data, so people are just going to go with their gut...
>
> If it were growing in line with lightning capacity in BTC, per
> bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity; then 15% now would have grown from
> perhaps 4% in May 2021, so perhaps 8% per year. With linear growth,
> getting from 15% to 80% would then be about 8 years.
>

This math doesn't work. Capacity is a bad metric for activity, something we
unfortunately imported from the ETH world's TVL. Liquid has the same number
of btc on it as Lightning, but we probably all know there are several
orders of magnitude of difference in terms of usage.

There is another type of linear math that can but done but it's
significantly more gloomy: Over the past 3 years the share of bitcoin
payments among services has dropped from ~90%+ to below 50%. These figures
are similar across Bitrefill, Living Room of Satoshi, CoinCards, Bitpay
which is all the sources I know that have published stats on this. If we
assume this trend continues at that pace we might be at a point where
payments on Bitcoin are irrelevant, especially onchain, and there isn't
much left to argue over. I don't think that's going to happen tho, this
math probably also doesn't work for the same reasons, and we will work hard
for it to not happen. Fundamentally the issue of legacy support for bitcoin
things remains, and the ossification that happened on bitcoin things around
the 2015 level of UX. Solving that issue has proven to be a very tricky
subject, that we spend lots of energy on, but yet without overwhelming
success.

Best,
Sergej


-- 

Sergej Kotliar

CEO


Twitter: @ziggamon <https://twitter.com/ziggamon>


www.bitrefill.com

Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/bitrefill> | Blog
<https://www.bitrefill.com/blog/> | Angellist <https://angel.co/bitrefill>

--000000000000d67d0005eb8a230c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 21:58, Anthony=
 Towns &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:aj@erisian.com.au">aj@erisian.com.au</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">So, what I=
&#39;m hearing is:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* lightning works great, but is still pretty small<br>
=C2=A0* zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF<br>
=C2=A0* opt-in RBF is a pain for two reasons:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - people don&#39;t like that it&#39;s not treated as zeroconf=
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - the risk of fiat/BTC exchange rate changes between<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 now and when the tx actually confirms is worrying<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 even if it hasn&#39;t caused real problems yet<br><br>=
</blockquote><div>This is about right yes=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Maybe it would be productive to explore this opt-in RBF part a bit<br>
more? ie, see if &quot;we&quot; can come up with better answers to some que=
stion<br>
along the lines of:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0&quot;how can we make on-chain payments for goods priced in fiat work=
 well<br>
=C2=A0 for payees that opt-in to RBF?&quot;<br>
<br>
That seems like the sort of thing that&#39;s better solved by a collaborati=
on<br>
between wallet devs and merchant devs (and protocol devs?), rather than<br>
just one or the other?<br>
<br>
Is that something that we could talk about here? Or maybe it&#39;s better<b=
r>
done via an optech workgroup or something?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>Agreed, more work is needed in the regard and we&#39;re happy to partic=
ipate in any efforts to make things better. It&#39;s not like we _want_ to =
be against the core dev roadmap :)</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
If &quot;we&#39;ll credit your account in BTC, then work out the USD covers=
ion<br>
and deduct that for your purchase, then you can do whatever you like<br>
with any remaining BTC from your on-chain payment&quot; is the idea, maybe =
we<br>
should just roll with that design, but make it more decentralised: have<br>
the initial payment setup a lightning channel between the customer and<br>
the merchant with the BTC (so it&#39;s not custodial), but do some magic to=
<br>
allow USD amounts to be transferred over it (Taro? something oracle based<b=
r>
so that both parties are confident a fair exchange rate will be used?).<br>
<br>
Maybe that particular idea is naive, but having an actual problem to<br>
solve seems more constructive than just saying &quot;we want rbf&quot; &quo=
t;but we<br>
want zeroconf&quot; all the time?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Don&#=
39;t think it would solve any of the issues even if the above could technic=
ally work, which it can&#39;t, simply because wallets that can only do dump=
 onchain=C2=A0payments are unlikely to be able to implement a scheme like t=
his.=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-le=
ft:1ex">
&gt; &gt; &gt; Currently Lightning is somewhere around 15% of our total bit=
coin<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; payments.<br>
&gt; &gt; So, based on last year&#39;s numbers, presumably that makes your =
bitcoin<br>
&gt; &gt; payments break down as something like:<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 5% txs are on-chain and seem shady and are excluded =
from zeroconf<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A015% txs are lightning<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A020% txs are on-chain but signal rbf and are excluded =
from zeroconf<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A060% txs are on-chain and seem fine for zeroconf<br>
&gt; Numbers are right. Shady is too strong a word,<br>
<br>
Heh, fair enough.<br>
<br>
So the above suggests 25% of payments already get a sub-par experience,<br>
compared to what you&#39;d like them to have (which sucks, but if you&#39;r=
e<br>
trying to reinvent both money and payments, maybe isn&#39;t surprising). An=
d<br>
going full rbf would bump that from 25% to 85%, which would be pretty<br>
terrible.<br>
<br>
&gt; RBF is a strictly worse UX as proven by anyone<br>
&gt; accepting bitcoin payments at scale.<br>
<br>
So let&#39;s make it better? Building bitcoin businesses on the lie that<br=
>
unconfirmed txs are safe and won&#39;t be replaced is going to bite us<br>
eventually; focussing on trying to push that back indefinitely is just<br>
going to make everyone less prepared when it eventually happens.<br></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>Sure. The question is if we &quot;make it better&=
quot; first or if we standardize on that which works worse first.</div><div=
>=C2=A0</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">
&gt; &gt; &gt; For me<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; personally it would be an easier discussion to have when Lig=
htning is at<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; 80%+ of all bitcoin transactions.<br>
&gt; &gt; Can you extrapolate from the numbers you&#39;ve seen to estimate =
when that<br>
&gt; &gt; might be, given current trends?<br>
&gt; Not sure, it might be exponential growth, and the next 60% of Lightnin=
g<br>
&gt; growth happen faster than the first 15%. Hard to tell. But we&#39;re l=
ikely<br>
&gt; talking years here..<br>
<br>
Okay? Two years is very different from 50 years, and at the moment there&#3=
9;s<br>
not really any data, so people are just going to go with their gut...<br>
<br>
If it were growing in line with lightning capacity in BTC, per<br>
<a href=3D"http://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity</a>; then 15% now would have gro=
wn from<br>
perhaps 4% in May 2021, so perhaps 8% per year. With linear growth,<br>
getting from 15% to 80% would then be about 8 years.<br></blockquote><div><=
br></div><div>This math doesn&#39;t work. Capacity is a bad metric for acti=
vity, something we unfortunately imported from the ETH world&#39;s TVL. Liq=
uid has the same number of btc on it as Lightning, but we probably all know=
 there are several orders of magnitude of difference in terms of usage.=C2=
=A0</div><div><br></div><div>There is another type of linear math that can =
but done but it&#39;s significantly more gloomy: Over the past 3 years the =
share of bitcoin payments among services has dropped from ~90%+ to below 50=
%. These figures are similar across Bitrefill, Living Room of Satoshi, Coin=
Cards, Bitpay which is all the sources I know that have published stats on =
this. If we assume this trend continues at that pace we might be at a point=
 where payments on Bitcoin are irrelevant, especially onchain, and there is=
n&#39;t much left to argue over. I don&#39;t think that&#39;s going to happ=
en tho, this math probably also doesn&#39;t work for the same reasons, and =
we will work hard for it to not happen. Fundamentally the issue of legacy s=
upport for bitcoin things remains, and the ossification that happened on bi=
tcoin things around the 2015 level of UX. Solving that issue has proven to =
be a very tricky subject, that we spend lots of energy on, but yet without =
overwhelming success.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>Best,</div><div>Sergej</di=
v><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmai=
l_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D=
"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><=
div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;m=
argin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family=
:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-s=
tyle:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baselin=
e;white-space:pre-wrap">Sergej Kotliar</span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"li=
ne-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:9=
.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-w=
eight:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertic=
al-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">CEO</span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=
=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><b style=3D"font-wei=
ght:normal"><br></b></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top=
:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;col=
or:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-style=
:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;wh=
ite-space:pre-wrap"><span style=3D"border:none;display:inline-block;overflo=
w:hidden;width:220px;height:80px"><img src=3D"https://lh4.googleusercontent=
.com/wU5i7e8boCd7o3P52cUTKrqeTa7jV2dPEXluijGtPBy0f1F0R2_zIg_zOQ2kigkbVbSWqL=
lVdwuBYgo_txXMKkCWdMfBFRNhsDhFpNv1QrRZsD-gPxDui-4l0tZI1QcjtefCDkNG" width=
=3D"220" height=3D"80" style=3D"margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></span>=
</span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-b=
ottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,1=
02,102);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font=
-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pr=
e-wrap">Twitter: @</span><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/ziggamon" style=3D"=
text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font=
-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;font-weig=
ht:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vert=
ical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">ziggamon</span></a><span style=3D=
"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:=
transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-deco=
ration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">=C2=A0</span></p>=
<p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">=
<b style=3D"font-weight:normal"><br></b></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-he=
ight:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><a href=3D"http://www.bitrefill=
.com/" style=3D"text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font=
-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:trans=
parent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoratio=
n:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">www.bitrefill.com=
</span></a></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;marg=
in-bottom:0pt"><a href=3D"https://www.twitter.com/bitrefill" target=3D"_bla=
nk"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102)=
;background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"=
>Twitter</span></a><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:r=
gb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-=
space:pre-wrap"> | </span><a href=3D"https://www.bitrefill.com/blog/" targe=
t=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102=
,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:=
pre-wrap">Blog</span></a><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;c=
olor:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;=
white-space:pre-wrap"> | </span><a href=3D"https://angel.co/bitrefill" targ=
et=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(10=
2,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space=
:pre-wrap">Angellist </span></a><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div=
></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000d67d0005eb8a230c--