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
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093A7C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:57:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDE740112
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:57:58 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org DFDE740112
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
header.i=@q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256
header.s=20210112 header.b=2i+p3PHe
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id GGWp2EqQf3ne
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1173440B57
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1173440B57
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:57:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id 19so1557440ljz.4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 14 Jul 2022 02:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=hIIWBPUWULjy6Iuh5oXCz2a0e//RuyPSeOJs6S+BjBk=;
b=2i+p3PHeqclSqUP18rGSy5fzSFu+CcPVxg0PVWLHedsZy38OZVleV9WcoOnSYqPYa7
jxeZP3x5rO9F1+dujRybkWEqFCWjPW6M/0urtjKAvAGZSFNT5gUWlHq+pM5LlKq4YjKV
y2NxgRpnoaKpv2O7Cf9teBFMV1GhM3zWFrp9cTrSk4ofHLk9sUpOctFLRhAejglTCZQZ
c1nrtoPk0QHNium7kf9/MNfiXnK3awKCtsnGm+l6tUBCj+rK+mpa+T1QgPLNb4EvVW6a
/oR5VgzzycHPZHu2sEjApK2VFMMZPdUyhW963j+Q01ePBmHUcoac6GsnhNhEyB4IFW2J
uKLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=hIIWBPUWULjy6Iuh5oXCz2a0e//RuyPSeOJs6S+BjBk=;
b=sOgmaAiAosFplkwF719TGMWPRMjUyNkWXp/XAZJhR828uAqYfT4FC2DFCu6YVxNQCm
C2D0cv+qq/0l3i5MjckSK4cMPDMO3AyjdSet2aAI79DKYIdKKhKoZeCZZksi02sAKMry
r1zJYH1Tf1b1Y7UZYvCotQHyKxY/MRu+DxZUnQyfEkVsb1PBJsJfDBdbfXbHDd0AaK+J
/vtMnsmTg12oGKUx7/Me0UpI9rKrqG8K3e7gEJ1wRx8a4TaZeTufMBbchC8E5a+SZnnN
IDZ5aix3xailYu4omI6rmzvHUnfpV7FJXUOZQKTscpsNgHd4Uybz7XDnewpsIYllkdIl
RjMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9F5SpveFZOA0FcmODVthSMh8ROSuo4kn0KHe622/Oi7x+HV1II
xAvtn7iZpP6jAx/1eWpMyI5ugQCIaAt62xDRiu42MRn+n9/0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tYUp73rZ5o7tVX1zEulauzmMM/Sc2WDl3qXh3Lr7Kdnm4qs1bemYMmgMYwNXxGLkjTmfZThupPB8HatgscNFU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:980e:0:b0:25d:53f0:642c with SMTP id
a14-20020a2e980e000000b0025d53f0642cmr4107395ljj.405.1657792674567; Thu, 14
Jul 2022 02:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAxiurZhzhPNuysoaByiLCdRpeyxz8S+onnoGTWC+MpanDFB_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<164548764-bff50cb79078c9964aa8ac1e51c13070@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
In-Reply-To: <164548764-bff50cb79078c9964aa8ac1e51c13070@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:57:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgL3eg9aRxkbLiVUyMoMapFUnSBMpA1mnrxB=3fx1fsu0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: vjudeu <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a9a6105e3c0efac"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 10:52:13 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Security problems with relying on transaction
fees for security
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: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:57:59 -0000
--0000000000007a9a6105e3c0efac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fees and miner rewards are not needed at all for security at all since long
term holders can simply invest in mining to secure the value of their stake=
.
Isn't it enough that the protocol has a mechanism to secure value?
Sure fees *might* be enough.
But in the event that they are not, large holders can burn a bit to make
sure the hashrate stays high.
I know, I know it's a tax on the rich and it's not fair because smaller
holders are less likely to do it, but it's a miniscule tax even in the
worst case
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022, 5:35 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This specific approach would obviously not work as most of those output=
s
> would be dust and the miner would need to waste an absurd amount of block
> space just to grab them, but maybe there's a smarter way to do it.
>
> There is a smarter way. Just send 0.01 BTC per block to the timelocked
> outputs. Now, we have 6.25 BTC, so it means less than 0.2%. But that
> percentage will grow over time, as basic block reward will shrink, and we
> will have mandatory 0.01 BTC endlessly moved, until it will wrap. And gue=
ss
> what: if it will be 0.01 BTC per block, wrapped every 210,000 blocks, it
> simply means you can lock 2,100 BTC in an endless circulation loop, and
> avoid this "tail supply attack".
>
> So, fortunately, even if "tail supply attackers" will win, we will still
> have a chance to counter-attack by burning those coins, or (even better) =
by
> locking them in an endless circulation loop, just to satisfy their
> malicious soft-fork, whatever amount it will require. Because even if it
> will be mandatory to timelock 0.01 BTC to the current block number plus
> 210,000, then it is still perfectly valid to move that amount endlessly,
> without taking it, just to resist this "tail supply attack".
>
>
> On 2022-07-13 20:01:39 user Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth ou=
t
> while keeping the ~21M coins limit ?
>
> This would be a hard fork afaict as it would go against the rules of the
> coinbase transaction following the usual halving schedule.
>
> However, if instead we added a rule that fees have to be sent to an anyon=
e
> can spend output with a timelock we might be able to achieve a similar
> thing.
>
> Highly inefficient example:
>
> - Split blocks into 144 (about a day)
> - A mined block takes all the fees and distributes them equally into 144
> new outputs (anyone can spend) time locked to each of the 144 blocks of t=
he
> next day.
> - Next day, for each block, we'd have available an amount equivalent to
> the previous day total fees / 144. So we deliver previous day's fees
> smoothed out.
>
> Notes:
> 144 is arbitrary in the example.
> This specific approach would obviously not work as most of those outputs
> would be dust and the miner would need to waste an absurd amount of block
> space just to grab them, but maybe there's a smarter way to do it.
>
>
>
>
> Gino Pinuto via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> escreveu no dia quarta, 13/07/2022 =C3=A0(s) 13:19:
> What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth out
> while keeping the ~21M coins limit ?
>
>
> Benefits :
> - Miners would still be incentivized to collect higher fees transaction
> with the indirect perspective to generate more reward in future.
> - Revenues are equally distributed over time to all participants and we
> solve the overnight discrepancy.
> - Increased velocity of money will reduce the immediate supply of bitcoin
> cooling down the economy.
> - Reduction of velocity will have an impact on miners only if it persever=
e
> in the long term but short term they will still perceive the buffered
> reward.
>
>
> I don't have ideas yet on how to elegantly implement this.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, 12:08 John Tromp via bitcoin-dev, <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state
> requires it to be entrenched globally.
>
> It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a
> pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin.
>
> What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission
> curve. If you emit 99% in the first year and 1% in the next 100 years,
> your emission "lasts" over 100 years, and you achieve a super low
> supply inflation rate immediately after 1 year, but it's obviously a
> terrible form of distribution.
>
> This is easy to quantify as the expected time of emission which would
> be 0.99 * 0.5yr + 0.01* 51yr =3D 2 years.
> Bitcoin is not much better in that the expected time of emission of an
> bitcoin satisfies x =3D 0.5*2yr + 0.5*(4+x) and thus equals 6 years.
>
> Monero appears much better since its tail emission yields an infinite
> expected time of emission, but if we avoid infinities by looking at
> just the soft total emission [1], which is all that is emitted before
> a 1% yearly inflation, then Monero is seen to actually be a lot worse
> than Bitcoin, due to emitting over 40% in its first year and halving
> the reward much faster. Ethereum is much worse still with its huge
> premine and PoS coins like Algorand are scraping the bottom with their
> expected emission time of 0.
>
> There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger
> than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50
> years.
>
> [1]
> https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188=
d153
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--0000000000007a9a6105e3c0efac
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">Fees and miner rewards are not needed at all for security=
at all since long term holders can simply invest in mining to secure the v=
alue of their stake.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Isn't=
it enough that the protocol has a mechanism to secure value?</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Sure fees *might* be enough.=C2=A0=C2=
=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">But in the event tha=
t they are not, large holders can burn a bit to make sure the hashrate stay=
s high.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I know, I know i=
t's a tax on the rich and it's not fair because smaller holders are=
less likely to do it, but it's a miniscule tax even in the worst case<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></=
div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_at=
tr">On Thu, Jul 14, 2022, 5:35 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> This spec=
ific approach would obviously not work as most of those outputs would be du=
st and the miner would need to waste an absurd amount of block space just t=
o grab them, but maybe there's a smarter way to do it.<br>
<br>
There is a smarter way. Just send 0.01 BTC per block to the timelocked outp=
uts. Now, we have 6.25 BTC, so it means less than 0.2%. But that percentage=
will grow over time, as basic block reward will shrink, and we will have m=
andatory 0.01 BTC endlessly moved, until it will wrap. And guess what: if i=
t will be 0.01 BTC per block, wrapped every 210,000 blocks, it simply means=
you can lock 2,100 BTC in an endless circulation loop, and avoid this &quo=
t;tail supply attack".<br>
<br>
So, fortunately, even if "tail supply attackers" will win, we wil=
l still have a chance to counter-attack by burning those coins, or (even be=
tter) by locking them in an endless circulation loop, just to satisfy their=
malicious soft-fork, whatever amount it will require. Because even if it w=
ill be mandatory to timelock 0.01 BTC to the current block number plus 210,=
000, then it is still perfectly valid to move that amount endlessly, withou=
t taking it, just to resist this "tail supply attack".<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2022-07-13 20:01:39 user Manuel Costa via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"norefer=
rer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth o=
ut while keeping the ~21M coins limit ?<br>
<br>
This would be a hard fork afaict as it would go against the rules of the co=
inbase transaction following the usual halving schedule.<br>
<br>
However, if instead we added a rule that fees have to be sent to an anyone =
can spend output with a timelock we might be able to achieve a similar thin=
g.<br>
<br>
Highly inefficient example:<br>
<br>
- Split blocks into 144 (about a day)<br>
- A mined block takes all the fees and distributes them equally into 144 ne=
w outputs (anyone can spend) time locked=C2=A0to each of the 144 blocks of =
the next day.<br>
- Next day, for each block, we'd have available an amount equivalent to=
the previous day total fees / 144. So we deliver previous day's fees s=
moothed out.<br>
<br>
Notes:<br>
144 is arbitrary in the example.<br>
This specific approach would obviously not work as=C2=A0most of those outpu=
ts would be dust and the miner would need to waste an absurd=C2=A0amount of=
block space just to grab them, but maybe there's a smarter way to do i=
t.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Gino Pinuto via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org</a>> escreveu no dia quarta, 13/07/2022 =C3=A0(s) 13:19:<b=
r>
What about burning all fees and keep a block reward that will smooth out wh=
ile keeping the ~21M coins limit ?<br>
<br>
<br>
Benefits :<br>
- Miners would still be incentivized to collect higher fees transaction wit=
h the indirect perspective to generate more reward in future.<br>
- Revenues are equally distributed over time to all participants and we sol=
ve the overnight discrepancy.<br>
- Increased velocity of money will reduce the immediate supply of bitcoin c=
ooling down the economy.<br>
- Reduction of velocity will have an impact on miners only if it persevere =
in the long term but short term they will still perceive the buffered rewar=
d.<br>
<br>
<br>
I don't have ideas yet on how to elegantly implement this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, 12:08 John Tromp via bitcoin-dev, <<a href=3D"mailt=
o:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferre=
r">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state =
requires it to be entrenched globally.<br>
<br>
It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a<=
br>
pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin.<br>
<br>
What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission<br>
curve. If you emit 99% in the first year and 1% in the next 100 years,<br>
your emission "lasts" over 100 years, and you achieve a super low=
<br>
supply inflation rate immediately after 1 year, but it's obviously a<br=
>
terrible form of distribution.<br>
<br>
This is easy to quantify as the expected time of emission which would<br>
be 0.99 * 0.5yr + 0.01* 51yr =3D 2 years.<br>
Bitcoin is not much better in that the expected time of emission of an<br>
bitcoin satisfies x =3D 0.5*2yr + 0.5*(4+x) and thus equals 6 years.<br>
<br>
Monero appears much better since its tail emission yields an infinite<br>
expected time of emission, but if we avoid infinities by looking at<br>
just the soft total emission [1], which is all that is emitted before<br>
a 1% yearly inflation, then Monero is seen to actually be a lot worse<br>
than Bitcoin, due to emitting over 40% in its first year and halving<br>
the reward much faster. Ethereum is much worse still with its huge<br>
premine and PoS coins like Algorand are scraping the bottom with their<br>
expected emission time of 0.<br>
<br>
There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger<br>
than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50<=
br>
years.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href=3D"https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su=
pply-1169a188d153" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://=
john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153</a><b=
r>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--0000000000007a9a6105e3c0efac--
|