path: root/2c/d595919e16fe3d6c24ea5de162a80fda0cf898

Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UpcZb-0006SV-9Q
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:58:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UpcZZ-0005uZ-Cm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:58:39 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h1so7776971oag.5
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.145.167 with SMTP id sv7mr4308265oeb.56.1371725911978;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiJvWckJYa-iw=qtjfj1PoY_bKhFD3sx6LqfUrFbWrGHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE0E45E-BB48-4DFF-9C86-ACBE312B3049@bitsofproof.com>
	<CANEZrP1MVKSNU92UrQ36sPCN0LNLKrVRXnfVwEZKhgoBFXatBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130620090649.GA17765@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
	<CANEZrP2cLR9sYZ59O-S6HNi9bKPtaY5yOkvVx+O8XAC792acZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1371724625.50978.YahooMailNeo@web162706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CAPg+sBiJvWckJYa-iw=qtjfj1PoY_bKhFD3sx6LqfUrFbWrGHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:58:31 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: k-c3UkJJkdvFkuBbiudFm4bgetE
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3HM9j9XuieaccGy5nQ78F-2QR_s4avcbicGaKHG1=69Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d94fbb67a9b04df93d3e4
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UpcZZ-0005uZ-Cm
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:58:39 -0000

--047d7b5d94fbb67a9b04df93d3e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

As I said, there's no benefit. Even if we do that on the C++ side, you
still have to handle connections from bitcoinj clients which will send the
field with the old version number. You can't assume they'll all be updated
simultaneously, even though both the Android app and MultiBit do have
update notifications these days and eventually old versions will presumably
disappear.

Re: flexibility. Let's say version V+1 adds a complicated new set of data
to some messages. Not every client wants or needs the feature enabled by
them.

Now version V+2 adds a simple extension to a basic message that everyone
wants/needs.

To get the latter feature, all clients now have to support the first
feature as well because the version number is monotonic.

OK, we can use a service bit to handle these cases, if we anticipate that
not all clients will want the first feature. But then again, we can also
use the presence of the additional data as the ground truth instead of
duplicating that fact. I don't really mind either way. It just seems that
parsing always requires you to be able to handle truncated messages anyway
(without asserting or crashing), because a bogus client can always send you
partial data. So I don't see what effort is saved.



On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wrote:

> Let's just increase the version number and be done with this discussion.
> It's a small benefit, but it simplifies things and it's trivial to do.
>
> I don't understand how a policy of requiring version increases could limit
> future extensions: after the version/verack exchange, the protocol version
> is negotiated between peers, and there is no need for anything optional
> anymore.
>
> Note thay this is just about parsing, not about relaying - you should
> still relay parts of a message you haven't parsed. But that doesn't apply
> to the version message anyway, which is the only place where this matters.
>
> --
> Pieter
>  On 20 Jun 2013 12:38, "Turkey Breast" <turkeybreast@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't get why this is such a contentious change?
>>
>> Before I was able to use asserts to check the expected length of length
>> of messages per protocol version, I could pass in dumb iterators that just
>> parse the byte stream and I could serialize and deserialize a message to
>> check the parser is correct (in debug mode).
>>
>> This 'simple' change causes all that behaviour to be lost. You can no
>> longer just use iterators but must know the remaining length (or if you use
>> std::distance, you can only use specific std containers - not just anything
>> with an iterator and an operator++). You cannot check the deserialization
>> process by serializing the deserialized message and comparing it to the
>> original data (because the bool is always present in the serializer).
>>
>> It's a bit stupid you call it buggy code when this behaviour has never
>> been present in Bitcoin. The BIP doesn't introduce any unwanted
>> side-effects and is a trivial reasonable change.
>>
>> If you want optional fields then the proper way to do it, is to either
>> set a flag in the Services field of the "version" message to indicate
>> different formats for messages (i.e use this template structure for a
>> message, not that one), introduce a new message (if the changes are big),
>> to approve/improve Stefan's BIP 32 for custom services or to have a value
>> in the byte stream indicating which fields are present (maybe a bitfield or
>> so).
>>
>> Using a quirk of an implementation is just bad form and sloppy coding.
>> Optional fields should have their own mechanism that allows them to remain
>> as optional fields between protocol version upgrades.
>>
>> The bitcoind software can probably be improved too, by checking that the
>> length of the version message is consistent for the protocol version given
>> by the connected node. Right now it makes no assumptions based on that
>> which is a mistake (new clients can broadcast older version messages that
>> don't have all the fields required). Probably the software should penalise
>> hosts which do that.
>>
>> What's the big deal to update the protocol version number from 70001 to
>> 70002? It's not like we'll run out of integers. The field has now gone from
>> optional to required now anyway - that's a behaviour change. It'd be good
>> to enforce that. I see this as a bug.
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
>> *To:* Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tamas
>> Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:17 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version
>>
>> There's no problem, but there's no benefit either. It also locks us in to
>> a potentially problematic guarantee - what if in future we want to have,
>> say, two optional new pieces of data in two different messages. We don't
>> want to require that if version > X then you have to implement all features
>> up to and including that point.
>>
>> Essentially the number of fields in a message is like a little version
>> number, just for that message. It adds flexibility to keep it that way, and
>> there's no downside, seeing as that bridge was already crossed and people
>> with parsers that can't handle it need to fix their code anyway.
>>
>> So I have a slight preference for keeping things the way they are, it
>> keeps things flexible for future and costs nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:36:40AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> > Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does
>> > anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at
>> the
>> > moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's
>> actually
>> > a new field to add.
>> >
>> > Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bitcoin
>> > protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixed
>> > number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it
>> did
>> > was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvious
>> > example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byte stream
>> > that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versions
>> > aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to
>> preserve
>> > fields from the future.
>>
>> Actually, that is not the same issue. What is being argued for here is
>> that
>> the version in the version message itself should indicate which fields are
>> present, so a parser doesn't need to look at the length of the message.
>> That
>> seems like a minor but very reasonable request to me, and it's trivial to
>> do.
>> That doesn't mean that you may receive versions higher than what you know
>> of,
>> and thus messages with fields you don't know about. That doesn't matter,
>> you
>> can just ignore them.
>>
>> I see no problem with raising the protocol version number to indicate
>> "all fields up to fRelayTxes are required, if the announced nVersion is
>> above N".
>> In fact, I believe (though haven't checked) all previous additions to the
>> version
>> message were accompanied with a protocol version (then: client version)
>> increase
>> as well.
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>> Build for Windows Store.
>>
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>> Build for Windows Store.
>>
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--047d7b5d94fbb67a9b04df93d3e4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">As I said, there&#39;s no benefit. Even if we do that on t=
he C++ side, you still have to handle connections from bitcoinj clients whi=
ch will send the field with the old version number. You can&#39;t assume th=
ey&#39;ll all be updated simultaneously, even though both the Android app a=
nd MultiBit do have update notifications these days and eventually old vers=
ions will presumably disappear.<div>
<br></div><div>Re: flexibility. Let&#39;s say version V+1 adds a complicate=
d new set of data to some messages. Not every client wants or needs the fea=
ture enabled by them.<div><br></div><div>Now version V+2 adds a simple exte=
nsion to a basic message that everyone wants/needs.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To get the latter feature, all clients now have to supp=
ort the first feature as well because the version number is monotonic.</div=
><div><br></div><div>OK, we can use a service bit to handle these cases, if=
 we anticipate that not all clients will want the first feature. But then a=
gain, we can also use the presence of the additional data as the ground tru=
th instead of duplicating that fact. I don&#39;t really mind either way. It=
 just seems that parsing always requires you to be able to handle truncated=
 messages anyway (without asserting or crashing), because a bogus client ca=
n always send you partial data. So I don&#39;t see what effort is saved.</d=
iv>
<div>=C2=A0</div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">p=
ieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Let&#39;s just increase the v=
ersion number and be done with this discussion. It&#39;s a small benefit, b=
ut it simplifies things and it&#39;s trivial to do.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t understand how a policy of requiring version inc=
reases could limit future extensions: after the version/verack exchange, th=
e protocol version is negotiated between peers, and there is no need for an=
ything optional anymore.</p>


<p dir=3D"ltr">Note thay this is just about parsing, not about relaying - y=
ou should still relay parts of a message you haven&#39;t parsed. But that d=
oesn&#39;t apply to the version message anyway, which is the only place whe=
re this matters.</p>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">

<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p></font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 20 Jun 2013 12:38, &quot;Turkey Breast&quot; =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:turkeybreast@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank">turkeybreas=
t@yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">

<div><div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman,new york,time=
s,serif"><div><span>I don&#39;t get why this is such a contentious change?<=
/span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color=
:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">

<br><span></span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;backg=
round-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><=
span>Before I was able to use asserts to check the expected length of lengt=
h of messages per protocol version, I could pass in dumb iterators that jus=
t parse the byte stream and I could serialize and deserialize a message to =
check the parser is correct (in debug mode).</span></div>

<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">

<span>This &#39;simple&#39; change causes all that behaviour to be lost. Yo=
u can no longer just use iterators but must know the remaining length (or i=
f you use std::distance, you can only use specific std containers - not jus=
t anything with an iterator and an operator++). You cannot check the deseri=
alization process by serializing the deserialized message and comparing it =
to the original data (because the bool is always present in the serializer)=
.</span></div>

<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">

<span>It&#39;s a bit stupid you call it buggy code when this behaviour has =
never been present in Bitcoin. The BIP doesn&#39;t introduce any unwanted s=
ide-effects and is a trivial reasonable change.</span></div><div style=3D"f=
ont-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:ti=
mes new roman,new york,times,serif">

<br><span></span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;backg=
round-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><=
span>If you want optional fields then the proper way to do it, is to either=
 set a flag in the Services field of the &quot;version&quot; message to ind=
icate different formats for messages (i.e use this template structure for a=
 message, not that one), introduce a new message (if the changes are big), =
to approve/improve Stefan&#39;s BIP 32 for custom services or to have a val=
ue in the byte stream indicating which fields are present (maybe
 a bitfield or so).</span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:1=
6px;background-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times=
,serif"><br><span></span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16=
px;background-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,=
serif">

<span>Using a quirk of an implementation is just bad form and sloppy coding=
. Optional fields should have their own mechanism that allows them to remai=
n as optional fields between protocol version upgrades.<br></span></div>

<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">

<span>The bitcoind software can probably be improved
 too, by checking that the length of the version message is consistent for =
the protocol version given by the connected node. Right now it makes no ass=
umptions based on that which is a mistake (new clients can broadcast older =
version messages that don&#39;t have all the fields required). Probably the=
 software should penalise hosts which do that.</span></div>

<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">

<span>What&#39;s the big deal to update the protocol version number from 70=
001 to 70002? It&#39;s not like we&#39;ll run out of integers. The field ha=
s now gone from optional to required now anyway - that&#39;s a behaviour ch=
ange. It&#39;d be good to enforce that. I see this as a
 bug.<br></span></div><div><br></div>  <div style=3D"font-family:times new =
roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style=3D"font-family:times=
 new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr size=
=3D"1">

  <font face=3D"Arial"> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">From:</span></b=
> Mike Hearn &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@=
plan99.net</a>&gt;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> P=
ieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt; <br>

<b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Bitcoin Dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bit=
coin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>&gt;; Tamas Blummer &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tamas@bitsofproof.com" target=3D"_blank">tamas@bitsofproof.com</=
a>&gt; <br>

 <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, June 20, 20=
13 11:17 AM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re:=
 [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version<br> </font> </div> <di=
v>

<br>
<div><div dir=3D"ltr">There&#39;s no problem, but there&#39;s no benefit ei=
ther. It also locks us in to a potentially problematic guarantee - what if =
in future we want to have, say, two optional new pieces of data in two diff=
erent messages. We don&#39;t want to require that if version &gt; X then yo=
u have to implement all features up to and including that point.<div>


<br></div><div>Essentially the number of fields in a message is like a litt=
le version number, just for that message. It adds flexibility to keep it th=
at way, and there&#39;s no downside, seeing as that bridge was already cros=
sed and people with parsers that can&#39;t handle it need to fix their code=
 anyway.</div>


<div><br></div><div>So I have a slight preference for keeping things the wa=
y they are, it keeps things flexible for future and costs nothing.</div><di=
v><br></div></div><div><br><br><div>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a re=
l=3D"nofollow" href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pi=
eter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


<div>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:36:40AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
&gt; Sure but why not do that when there&#39;s an actual new field to add? =
Does<br>
&gt; anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at=
 the<br>
&gt; moment? There&#39;s no point changing the protocol now unless there&#3=
9;s actually<br>
&gt; a new field to add.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Anyway I still don&#39;t see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bi=
tcoin<br>
&gt; protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixe=
d<br>
&gt; number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it =
did<br>
&gt; was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvio=
us<br>
&gt; example of that pattern in action - it&#39;s actually the raw byte str=
eam<br>
&gt; that&#39;s stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versi=
ons<br>
&gt; aren&#39;t dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to=
 preserve<br>
&gt; fields from the future.<br>
<br>
</div>Actually, that is not the same issue. What is being argued for here i=
s that<br>
the version in the version message itself should indicate which fields are<=
br>
present, so a parser doesn&#39;t need to look at the length of the message.=
 That<br>
seems like a minor but very reasonable request to me, and it&#39;s trivial =
to do.<br>
That doesn&#39;t mean that you may receive versions higher than what you kn=
ow of,<br>
and thus messages with fields you don&#39;t know about. That doesn&#39;t ma=
tter, you<br>
can just ignore them.<br>
<br>
I see no problem with raising the protocol version number to indicate<br>
&quot;all fields up to fRelayTxes are required, if the announced nVersion i=
s above N&quot;.<br>
In fact, I believe (though haven&#39;t checked) all previous additions to t=
he version<br>
message were accompanied with a protocol version (then: client version) inc=
rease<br>
as well.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Pieter<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div><br>-----------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------<br>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:<br><br>Build fo=
r Windows Store.<br><br><a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev</a><br>

_______________________________________________<br>Bitcoin-development mail=
ing list<br><a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br><a href=3D=
"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target=
=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen=
t</a><br>

<br><br></div> </div> </div>  </div></div><br>-----------------------------=
-------------------------------------------------<br>
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:<br>
<br>
Build for Windows Store.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev</a><br>_________________________________________=
______<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>-----------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------<br>
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:<br>
<br>
Build for Windows Store.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev</a><br>_________________________________________=
______<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b5d94fbb67a9b04df93d3e4--