1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
|
Return-Path: <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 200BB83D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:47:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com (mail-pd0-f173.google.com
[209.85.192.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18234108
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:47:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdbep18 with SMTP id ep18so57869379pdb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:user-agent
:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type;
bh=UPbAeUl3SkhxXWlsZLUQtjRqlEOKJAaaRwRY7kv4BC4=;
b=tQSXNbEbzHis1mdZQVnWZvYO1dTZVMZXBr5LWLmTdydEZRQFwhpN/vyR9pGiHehfEb
gHL52ttdA6psvVPF+VsaTqBWizAafxVSL7+zAA6mzFa27mh23cm4kFKZOcWqJRFlYPKZ
/IlLRh5AhCwtWJ8zkNGNxWyNwH3W/itnpEceulMHfO/mvPD7wGnSHEOrvEk8m7j42Eo4
pIUaacui0FFXN3H/3mzUVouw+JejdbYymLmHedo5TfKTfnzJcWLYA27c7k0sfxa1RcmW
g+Q7WkmGZLT6a3ZOiwZfRFti/AnnckeSlgfXOigtACvBhroCUpW2QNAOL+T8m7h/b3LN
pRFw==
X-Received: by 10.70.46.74 with SMTP id t10mr6142883pdm.118.1435344460769;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.45.134.9] (c-24-5-81-164.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.81.164])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
x16sm34040202pbt.87.2015.06.26.11.47.38
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <558D9E49.7000601@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:47:37 -0700
From: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com> <CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------080305040602080809010709"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:47:42 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080305040602080809010709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Planning for a hard forks which change the consensus rules (including
the blocksize limit) is something we can all agree is worthy of time and
effort.
However there is clearly not consensus sufficient today to deploy a hard
fork that changs the blocksize without there being serious and
potentially experiment ending consequences.
For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to be
safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of action.
That simply does not exist on the blocksize limit question.
On 06/26/2015 11:23 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the future
> produces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior.
>
> The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees. From the
> market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change over
> the span of a few months.
>
> At a higher level, people look at bitcoin and see people delaying,
> waiting, dawdling until the barn is actually on fire before taking
> action to put out the fire.
>
> They see a system that is not responsive to higher level externalities
> of people & businesses making plans for the future. Based on current
> proposal of change-through-inaction, businesses will simply shelve
> plans to use bitcoin and not bother putting those new users on the
> network.
>
> If you wait until the need to increase block size is acute, it is
> already too late. (1) Businesses have permanently shelved plans to
> use bitcoin and (2) change at that point produces _larger_ disruption
> to the fee market.
>
> Hard forks require planning many months in advance. Gavin's timing is
> sound, even though the Gavin/Hearn Bitcoin-XT antics were sub-optimal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Pieter Wuille
> <pieter.wuille@gmail.com <mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I am not saying that economic change is what we want. Only that it
> is inevitable, independent of whether larger blocks happen or not.
>
> I am saying that acting because of fear of economic change is a
> bad reason. The reason for increase should be because of the
> higher utility. We need it at some point, but there should be no rush.
>
> I do understand that we want to avoid a *sudden* change in
> economic policy, but I'm generally not too worried. Either fees
> increase and they get paid, and we're good. But more likely is
> that some uses just move off-chain because the block chain does
> not offer what they need. That's sad, but it is inevitable at any
> size: some uses fit, some don't.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
> On Jun 26, 2015 7:57 PM, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@gmail.com
> <mailto:jgarzik@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> It is not "fear" of fee pressure.
>
> 1) Blocks are mostly not-full on average.
>
> 2) Absent long blocks and stress tests, there is little fee
> pressure above the anti-spam relay fee metric, because of #1.
>
> 3) As such, inducing fee pressure is a delta, a change from
> years-long bitcoin economic policy. Each time we approach the
> soft limit, Bitcoin Core increases the soft limit to prevent
> "full" blocks. Mike Hearn et. al. lobbies miners to upgrade.
>
> (note - this is not an endorsement of these actions - it is a
> neutral observation)
>
> 4) Inaction leads to consistent fee pressure as the months
> tick on and system volume grows; thus, inaction leads to
> economic policy change.
>
> 5) Economic policy change leads to market and software
> disruption. The market and software - notably wallets - is
> not prepared for this.
>
> 6) If you want to change economic policy, that's fine. But be
> honest and admit you are arguing for a change, a delta from
> current market expectations and behavior.
>
> 7) It is critical to first deal with what _is_, not what you
> wish the world to be. You want a fee market to develop.
> There is nothing wrong with that desire. It remains a delta
> from where we are today, and that is critically relevant in a
> $3b+ market.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille
> <pieter.wuille@gmail.com <mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> here I'm going to try to address a part of the block size
> debate which has been troubling me since the beginning:
> the reason why people seem to want it.
>
> People say that larger blocks are necessary. In the long
> term, I agree - in the sense that systems that do not
> evolve tend to be replaced by other systems. This
> evolution can come in terms of layers on top of Bitcoin's
> blockchain, in terms of the technology underlying various
> aspects of the blockchain itself, and also in the scale
> that this technology supports.
>
> I do, however, fundamentally disagree that a fear for a
> change in economics should be considered to necessitate
> larger blocks. If it is, and there is consensus that we
> should adapt to it, then there is effectively no limit
> going forward. This is similar to how Congress voting to
> increase the copyright term retroactively from time to
> time is really no different from having an infinite
> copyright term in the first place. This scares me.
>
> Here is how Gavin summarizes the future without increasing
> block sizes in PR 6341:
>
> > 1. Transaction confirmation times for transactions with
> a given fee will rise; very-low-fee transactions will fail
> to get confirmed at all.
> > 2. Average transaction fee paid will rise
> > 3. People or applications unwilling or unable to pay the
> rising fees will stop submitting transactions
> > 4. People and businesses will shelve plans to use
> Bitcoin, stunting growth and adoption
>
> Is it fair to summarize this as "Some use cases won't fit
> any more, people will decide to no longer use the
> blockchain for these purposes, and the fees will adapt."?
>
> I think that is already happening, and will happen at any
> scale. I believe demand for payments in general is nearly
> infinite, and only a small portion of it will eventually
> fit on a block chain (independent of whether its size is
> limited by consensus rules or economic or technological
> means). Furthermore, systems that compete with Bitcoin in
> this space already offer orders of magnitude more capacity
> than we can reasonably achieve with any blockchain
> technology at this point.
>
> I don't know what subset of use cases Bitcoin will cater
> to in the long term. They have already changed - you see
> way less betting transactions these days than a few years
> ago for example - and they will keep changing, independent
> of what effective block sizes we end up with. I don't
> think we should be afraid of this change or try to stop it.
>
> If you look at graphs of block sizes over time (for
> example, http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498), it seems to me
> that there is very little "organic" growth, and a lot of
> sudden changes (which could correspond to changing
> defaults in miner software, introduction of popular
> sites/services, changes in the economy). I think these can
> be seen as the economy changing to full up the available
> space, and I believe these will keep happening at any size
> effectively available.
>
> None of this is a reason why the size can't increase.
> However, in my opinion, we should do it because we believe
> it increases utility and understand the risks; not because
> we're afraid of what might happen if we don't hurry up.
> And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge
> increase at once...
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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
--------------080305040602080809010709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Planning for a hard forks which change the consensus rules
(including the blocksize limit) is something we can all agree is
worthy of time and effort.<br>
<br>
However there is clearly not consensus sufficient today to deploy a
hard fork that changs the blocksize without there being serious and
potentially experiment ending consequences.<br>
<br>
For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to
be safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of
action.<br>
<br>
That simply does not exist on the blocksize limit question.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/26/2015 11:23 AM, Jeff Garzik
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?)
months in the future produces that lumpy, unpredictable market
behavior.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low
fees. From the market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely
that, a sudden change over the span of a few months.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At a higher level, people look at bitcoin and see people
delaying, waiting, dawdling until the barn is actually on fire
before taking action to put out the fire.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They see a system that is not responsive to higher level
externalities of people & businesses making plans for the
future. Based on current proposal of change-through-inaction,
businesses will simply shelve plans to use bitcoin and not
bother putting those new users on the network.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you wait until the need to increase block size is acute,
it is already too late. (1) Businesses have permanently
shelved plans to use bitcoin and (2) change at that point
produces _larger_ disruption to the fee market.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hard forks require planning many months in advance.
Gavin's timing is sound, even though the Gavin/Hearn
Bitcoin-XT antics were sub-optimal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:12 AM,
Pieter Wuille <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target="_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">I am not saying that economic change is what we
want. Only that it is inevitable, independent of whether
larger blocks happen or not.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I am saying that acting because of fear of
economic change is a bad reason. The reason for increase
should be because of the higher utility. We need it at
some point, but there should be no rush.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I do understand that we want to avoid a
*sudden* change in economic policy, but I'm generally not
too worried. Either fees increase and they get paid, and
we're good. But more likely is that some uses just move
off-chain because the block chain does not offer what they
need. That's sad, but it is inevitable at any size: some
uses fit, some don't.</p>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 26, 2015 7:57 PM, "Jeff
Garzik" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgarzik@gmail.com" target="_blank">jgarzik@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">It is not "fear" of fee pressure.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) Blocks are mostly not-full on average.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) Absent long blocks and stress tests, there
is little fee pressure above the anti-spam relay
fee metric, because of #1.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) As such, inducing fee pressure is a delta,
a change from years-long bitcoin economic
policy. Each time we approach the soft limit,
Bitcoin Core increases the soft limit to prevent
"full" blocks. Mike Hearn et. al. lobbies
miners to upgrade.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(note - this is not an endorsement of these
actions - it is a neutral observation)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4) Inaction leads to consistent fee pressure
as the months tick on and system volume grows;
thus, inaction leads to economic policy change.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>5) Economic policy change leads to market and
software disruption. The market and software -
notably wallets - is not prepared for this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>6) If you want to change economic policy,
that's fine. But be honest and admit you are
arguing for a change, a delta from current
market expectations and behavior.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>7) It is critical to first deal with what
_is_, not what you wish the world to be. You
want a fee market to develop. There is nothing
wrong with that desire. It remains a delta from
where we are today, and that is critically
relevant in a $3b+ market.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at
7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com"
target="_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hello all,<br>
<br>
</div>
here I'm going to try to
address a part of the block
size debate which has been
troubling me since the
beginning: the reason why
people seem to want it.<br>
<br>
</div>
People say that larger blocks
are necessary. In the long
term, I agree - in the sense
that systems that do not
evolve tend to be replaced by
other systems. This evolution
can come in terms of layers on
top of Bitcoin's blockchain,
in terms of the technology
underlying various aspects of
the blockchain itself, and
also in the scale that this
technology supports.<br>
<br>
</div>
I do, however, fundamentally
disagree that a fear for a
change in economics should be
considered to necessitate larger
blocks. If it is, and there is
consensus that we should adapt
to it, then there is effectively
no limit going forward. This is
similar to how Congress voting
to increase the copyright term
retroactively from time to time
is really no different from
having an infinite copyright
term in the first place. This
scares me.<br>
<br>
</div>
Here is how Gavin summarizes the
future without increasing block
sizes in PR 6341:<br>
<br>
> 1. Transaction confirmation
times for transactions with a
given fee will rise; very-low-fee
transactions will fail to get
confirmed at all.<br>
> 2. Average transaction fee
paid will rise<br>
> 3. People or applications
unwilling or unable to pay the
rising fees will stop submitting
transactions<br>
> 4. People and businesses will
shelve plans to use Bitcoin,
stunting growth and adoption<br>
<br>
</div>
Is it fair to summarize this as
"Some use cases won't fit any more,
people will decide to no longer use
the blockchain for these purposes,
and the fees will adapt."?<br>
<br>
</div>
I think that is already happening, and
will happen at any scale. I believe
demand for payments in general is
nearly infinite, and only a small
portion of it will eventually fit on a
block chain (independent of whether
its size is limited by consensus rules
or economic or technological means).
Furthermore, systems that compete with
Bitcoin in this space already offer
orders of magnitude more capacity than
we can reasonably achieve with any
blockchain technology at this point.<br>
<br>
I don't know what subset of use cases
Bitcoin will cater to in the long
term. They have already changed - you
see way less betting transactions
these days than a few years ago for
example - and they will keep changing,
independent of what effective block
sizes we end up with. I don't think we
should be afraid of this change or try
to stop it.<br>
<br>
</div>
If you look at graphs of block sizes
over time (for example, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498"
target="_blank">http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498</a>),
it seems to me that there is very little
"organic" growth, and a lot of sudden
changes (which could correspond to
changing defaults in miner software,
introduction of popular sites/services,
changes in the economy). I think these
can be seen as the economy changing to
full up the available space, and I
believe these will keep happening at any
size effectively available.<br>
<br>
</div>
None of this is a reason why the size
can't increase. However, in my opinion, we
should do it because we believe it
increases utility and understand the
risks; not because we're afraid of what
might happen if we don't hurry up. And
from that point of view, it seems silly to
make a huge increase at once...<span><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
</font></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">Pieter<br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080305040602080809010709--
|
