path: root/68/ba75b69ba1f94b3cb6b3108c688961ac3d4dc0

Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338DF4D3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com
	[209.85.192.178])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2562D109
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdrh1 with SMTP id h1so42550304pdr.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=J8A+X4ArPMWpInxOHpHQEKBo0ytMksGXj0JleMCBzy0=;
	b=le8Wc/QBNGU8VWijWV8ZMwpiqpHL09wIy4EEqRQzNH8i5VQiPBpIwxEvUhP7rLa8hb
	epk9HBpCgk83X57KSDMCxHgToi8VC2/1RVe8ykNkfqLiJiz+1BtXlMGXvZ6dWeusHQtd
	Ulq4L4XKvm9Qax7f5biNRcoCmIjuS7Iddn8e//a89quUO38+HRkmjSRqlwHXjFIvT0Ru
	3qoyuReD2i2XgG+CIVUM7qloGalXirRLIKgvzzH+4UR1P5VZZuSWQcwYuIg03O1fOp1b
	qoneSubu0ncHy4fJsAoXM1MYLWLJgEfOefaEswZBiky5WPWsThnifoC5uPpiC93p8b8b
	iipg==
X-Received: by 10.70.65.5 with SMTP id t5mr103760279pds.16.1439676995874;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	rd8sm9784945pdb.10.2015.08.15.15.16.11
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:10 -0700
Message-Id: <CC1B6D0E-F9D5-422B-980D-C589CDC00612@gmail.com>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:37 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7"


--Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, =
consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status =
quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER =
CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against =
network consensus will be severely punished with complete loss of =
income.

I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should =
have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking about merely =
forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a =
ledger representing real assets that real people are holding=E2=80=A6and =
I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk of permanent ledger forks =
far outweighs whatever benefits any change in the protocol might bring. =
And this would be true even if there were unanimous agreement that the =
change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case) but the =
deployment mechanism could still break things.

If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change =
first, just to test deployability.

> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods =
that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems =
like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may =
change without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible =
hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.

Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a =
far less contentious change first

> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the =
most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a =
company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially =
limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a =
blatant conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them =
to either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves =
from the blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would =
end with Bitcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.

For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of =
other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the =
concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be =
motivated primarily by profit motives.

It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the =
default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change =
falls on those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent =
ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might =
bring.

> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. =
Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the =
lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you =
think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain =
transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6

Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and =
sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a =
look at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to =
make any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and =
my agenda in this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but=
 with all due respect, I do not think you properly understand them at =
all.

> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and =
Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by =
outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. =
It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is =
already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style.

I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people want =
to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is =
being pushed that is deeply problematic.

> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> You deeply disappoint me, Mike.
>=20
> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions =
from a great number of people who have published and posted a number of =
articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6you =
also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions =
of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were =
fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original =
=E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.
>=20
> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive =
crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is =
proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, =
as several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an =
open source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - =
there=E2=80=99s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This =
isn=E2=80=99t a democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a =
good number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner =
workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a =
good idea should give you pause.
>=20
> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for =
the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious =
technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are =
discrediting yourself and hurting your own reputation.
>=20
>=20
> - Eric
>=20
>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hello,
>>=20
>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the =
bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from
>>=20
>>      https://bitcoinxt.software/ <https://bitcoinxt.software/>
>>=20
>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The =
Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and =
many others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix =
things.
>>=20
>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is =
not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in =
forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure =
everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of =
"manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be =
different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).
>>=20
>> The article is here:
>>=20
>>     =
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 =
<https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1>
>>=20
>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our =
point of view.
>>=20
>> The manifesto is on the website.
>>=20
>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is =
no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't =
bite.
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"">What are you so afraid of, =
Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is reached around larger =
blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain for now. Network =
consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, =
and those that go against network consensus will be severely punished =
with complete loss of income.<br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div>I fully agree that core developers are not the only =
people who should have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not =
talking about merely forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99re =
talking about forking a ledger representing real assets that real people =
are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk =
of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change in =
the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there were =
unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS NOT =
in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break =
things.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>If anything we should =
attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change first, just to test =
deployability.</div><div><div><br class=3D""></div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some =
sort of Bitcoin Gods that can hold up any change that they happen to =
disagree with. It seems like the core devs are scared to death that the =
bitcoin network may change without their blessing, so they go on and on =
about how terrible hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep =
core devs in check.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork =
mechanism and test it with a far less contentious change first</div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Despite significant past =
technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most vocal opponents to a =
reasonable blocksize increase work for a company (Blockstream) that =
stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the blocksize. The =
whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of interest, =
the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from =
Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize =
debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, =
but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. =
Neither do a bunch of other people who have published a number of =
concerns. Very few of the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical =
community seem to be motivated primarily by profit =
motives.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>It should also be pointed =
out that *not* making drastic changes is the default consensus =
policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change falls on those who =
want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger forks far =
outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.</div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Personally, I think miners should =
give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that they are in =
direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for fees. =
Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB =
blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more =
on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6<br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div>Miners=
 are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains =
- these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look at these =
ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make any such =
claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my agenda in =
this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all =
due respect, I do not think you properly understand them at all.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">The longer this =
debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because =
the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces and should =
not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also interesting to =
note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks =
BIP100 style. &nbsp;</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div>I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that =
some people want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which =
this change is being pushed that is deeply problematic.</div><div><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, =
Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" class=3D""><div class=3D"">You deeply =
disappoint me, Mike.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out =
positions from a great number of people who have published and posted a =
number of articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical =
concerns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading =
into the intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, =
before we even were fully aware of many things we now know that bring =
the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I ask of you, as a =
civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite your =
protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is proposing a =
radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as several of =
us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open source =
project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99=
s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a =
democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of =
the people most intimately familiar with the inner workings of =
Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a good idea =
should give you pause.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political =
football=E2=80=A6for the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. =
Despite your obvious technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you =
have them) you are discrediting yourself and hurting your own =
reputation.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">- Eric</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite"=
 class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via =
bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
 wrote:</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">Hello,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">As =
promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger =
blocks patch set. You can get it from</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<a =
href=3D"https://bitcoinxt.software/" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://bitcoinxt.software/</a><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I feel sad that it's =
come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core project has =
drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel are =
important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Forking is a natural =
thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the first and won't =
be the last project to go through this. Often in forks, people say there =
was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is crystal clear =
I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to describe why this =
is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core (assuming =
adoption, of course).</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The article is here:</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">&nbsp; &nbsp; <a =
href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1=
" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d2=
2c1</a><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from =
our point of view.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The manifesto is on the website.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I say to all developers on this list: =
if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin =
users, come join us. We don't bite.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
<br class=3D""></blockquote></div><br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7--

--Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=To5Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C--