summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/0c/7dd3382ef3d3f00de67447cd7e77f748e2e230
blob: 3334fc8de81d21f77bd1669c1278adf111f6ab0a (plain)
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
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D042E58
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:43:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com
	[209.85.223.172])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF63FC
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:43:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id d13so6622671iog.5
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=dktnaXDXXtyp1PDt48uDzyFuatEdKdOAQPIBG4KOJFE=;
	b=ziFhWdc4CYjSv8y2LiUEXkmABCObYGeb3bq1JpZAv2Fwv5odB4CE1YNFszbNd/rzvO
	r9KPnvlC2vFS8DSts8Y4y0sXKA8PoYY1g6oQsH4gRux2u7H/BKcrugl5bwE+i9Nwqoc6
	19ADDbfHbKp1DVUyvuaH3gWz1VAK1ntXFu9Y1K6QIXAz3qze4kV80CoGNbkSUjWRY7cK
	VmxUAF+wk7AIyUq+21CiTPXD+Y76ZLC2p0t760NkQMI9PcJkZlaBr9FVEk7rEvqMzelL
	PYBfHCbAWLehD/Xz1km6brAVDzU6VJdRp45rQ5XXd6njsitd9FnEdEZ7WMUSIXI5zGZl
	OmMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=dktnaXDXXtyp1PDt48uDzyFuatEdKdOAQPIBG4KOJFE=;
	b=TrtCUArz/gwilRW1GFwXj5VclP2t4JH+Fcak0XXYLAy4eqcE/aI2fL3lUVbTetqxiS
	gG0koZXbx9FlP3b9yYSHlg3FBeHF5/+lhZW/Qbnhrc2TB7fx8R0aJ68Tcv89KHKwmsPR
	q9XqrqQmL7tWbOe0EfccutVXRKosv1Ydp3sEvrNGFqzhJZIn1AFNtOnYx/b8QdAGLSAB
	sTKFF/DPqHzfEQAfpqOzxa5eDrlzQ4Lu+9RxsV+dcG27aO9E7UjRmTAL0xEcKijfnLMy
	IlW/vdZEVvA3mF0IxVGv+xkUHOA+vmk5q7VzcziHO+zGTAXrxioXRqp+EL1L3k5dJQQt
	WG3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdJLJ+S9bpIcmlnQzsU91TYhCh67LYTGQhjbyLbnloEg38a+P8m
	TMDZMOUsozYyPSUFVu/ZB4/dUQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226Jt0NnZNkpk00GAwlh8XcSzrxaplADKTNvO5QcNVvc6TpJQZQbbA9eaemDjtI0B/NFLj4yVw==
X-Received: by 10.107.201.136 with SMTP id z130mr743787iof.257.1516661004872; 
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:19f4:bd85:8d70:2db3?
	([2601:600:a080:16bb:19f4:bd85:8d70:2db3])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q82sm4420638itb.7.2018.01.22.14.43.23
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:23 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C153)
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgLJ2QmCGAwhUgW8foy-=8FK4FwzMxXYCNZoLaS=DXMCTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <DFE3C3DB-1DFE-44B4-8A42-2F11AEFE3A02@voskuil.org>
References: <CANZDnNomrpBTJU4=J1QqJpDePJ6RXyYsrwa=b9ZZOjyf1utQBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<ijnCMrLMjj4_aUv1BO5NiTk9jtMBL6aaN0yg4hwbF6JNms3MmlpNww0-smKeaqqT0dhsfmxlaX-tKoZ6s06g2ZNmgqY4uWnuuFul8e9on6g=@protonmail.com>
	<CANZDnNo2HMWGOZ4torXvpqjbq6SE=NLBLwysJzetrpurWBu+yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJowKgLJ2QmCGAwhUgW8foy-=8FK4FwzMxXYCNZoLaS=DXMCTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:49:01 +0000
Cc: Chaofan Li <li3939108@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain Voluntary Fork (Split) Proposal
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:43:27 -0000


--Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All other things being equal, the money with the larger network is more usef=
ul due to the cost of exchange between them, which can only be eliminated by=
 one absorbing the network of the other. According the Thiers=E2=80=99 law (=
i.e. in the absence of currency controls), the more useful money will get us=
ed. It is not the case that they will just become the same value.

However, all other things are not equal. As a Bitcoin becomes more useful it=
s use rises. Rising use implies rising fees, which in turn reduces usefulnes=
s (stability property). While the better money prices out certain scenarios,=
 they remain viable in the lesser money. But eventually this will happen the=
re as well, and the better money will absorb the lesser.

The perpetual creation of new monies with exchange between them and the best=
 money (largest network) could certainly exist, but layering proposes an app=
roach that doesn=E2=80=99t require all merchants to perpetually be accepting=
 different monies. It has a similar security trade-off (lower security for t=
ransacting off of the better money), which is the source of decreased transa=
ction cost. But without the exchange and overhead cost the layered money can=
 be better than multiple monies.

Also, all splits are voluntary.

e

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:40, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> Without enforcement liquidity will diverge.  =20
>=20
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hi ZmnSCPxj
>>=20
>> I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be worth the same.=20
>> If the two chains=E2=80=99 algorithms are the same , except some identifi=
ers (eg. btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they have no reason to have different value. I=
f so, the market will adjust the value.
>>=20
>> Also, the total supply can be the same. The amount in blockchains  is jus=
t some numbers. The  wallet can display correct amount, according to the ide=
ntifiers.
>>=20
>> The voluntary split is also backward compatible with old version transact=
ions, they can be treated as tx for both chains and included in both chains l=
ater. For new version Tx after fork, some identifiers must be added , to mar=
k the tx is for that chain only. The miners need to choose one chain to mine=
.
>>=20
>> After several voluntary splits , the Blockchain basically become a blockt=
ree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. btc.00 btc.01 btc.10 btc.11 ), p=
roviding even more capacity.=20
>>=20
>> Chaofan
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:13 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote=
:
>>> Good morning Chaofan Li,
>>>=20
>>> What enforces that bitcoin A is worth the same as bitcoin B?  Or are the=
y allowed to eventually diverge in price?  If they diverge in price, how is t=
hat different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin Gold, B=
itcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on?
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>> ZmnSCPxj
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>>=20
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> On January 17, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Here I propose a simple method to solve the scalability issue of blockc=
hain.
>>>> It is more like a financial trick rather than a technical solution.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> The technical part is very simple:=20
>>>> Split ( hard fork ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. t=
wo blockchain A and B), voluntarily.=20
>>>> The two blockchains are the same except for some identifiers to disting=
uish the two blockchains.
>>>> The coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one or interfe=
red by the other blockchain (  considering so many hard forks in the last ye=
ar, the replay protection should work in this situation)
>>>> Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half  value of original one bitc=
oin.=20
>>>> Then, we have two almost same blockchains and the capacity of the origi=
nal blockchain is doubled theoretically.
>>>> When sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randomly and=
 try to send through only  one blockchain (If there is enough bitcoins)
>>>> I think it is a  possible solution, if the community realize  no previo=
usly owned asset value  is lost.
>>>>=20
>>>> The method is inspired by the stock split.
>>>> When a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price hal=
ves.
>>>> The market capitalization remains the same.
>>>> There is no dilution of every shareholders' total assets.
>>>>=20
>>>> The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be c=
hanged.
>>>> If the total supply increases, the value of a single coin will be dilut=
ed.
>>>> That is true.
>>>> However, the bad part of inflation of fiat money is not  diluted value o=
f every unit of fiat money caused by total supply increase.
>>>> The problem is the increased supply is not delivered to everyone propor=
tional to their previously owned money.
>>>> The increased supply is released through debt expansion.
>>>> The people that can borrow more money with low interest ratio (during Q=
E, it was nearly 0) can invest  and get profit.
>>>> Or they don't even need to pay back the debt. The debt is left to gover=
nment, which might never pay back the debt, and some  get more money from go=
vernment.
>>>> Others' money are diluted.
>>>>=20
>>>> With voluntary split of bitcoin, dilution of anyone's bitcoin assets wo=
n't happen.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> 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-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div></div><div>All other things being equa=
l, the money with the larger network is more useful due to the cost of excha=
nge between them, which can only be eliminated by one absorbing the network o=
f the other. According the Thiers=E2=80=99 law (i.e. in the absence of curre=
ncy controls), the more useful money will get used. It is not the case that t=
hey will just become the same value.</div><div><br></div><div>However, all o=
ther things are not equal. As a Bitcoin becomes more useful its use rises. R=
ising use implies rising fees, which in turn reduces usefulness (stability p=
roperty). While the better money prices out certain scenarios, they remain v=
iable in the lesser money. But eventually this will happen there as well, an=
d the better money will absorb the lesser.</div><div><br></div><div>The perp=
etual creation of new monies with exchange between them and the best money (=
largest network) could certainly exist, but layering proposes an approach th=
at doesn=E2=80=99t require all merchants to perpetually be accepting differe=
nt monies. <span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">It has a=
 similar security trade-off (lower security for transacting off of the bette=
r money), which is the source of decreased transaction cost. But without the=
 exchange and overhead cost the layered money can be better than multiple mo=
nies.</span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0=
);"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 25=
5, 0);">Also, all splits are voluntary.</span></div><div><br></div><div>e</d=
iv><div><br>On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:40, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr">Without enforcement liquidity will diverge.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 2=
2, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div><div dir=3D"auto">Hi ZmnSCPxj</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto">I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be worth the sam=
e.&nbsp;</div><div dir=3D"auto">If the two chains=E2=80=99 algorithms are th=
e same , except some identifiers (eg. btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they have no rea=
son to have different value. If so, the market will adjust the value.</div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Also, the total supply can be t=
he same. The amount in blockchains &nbsp;is just some numbers. The &nbsp;wal=
let can display correct amount, according to the identifiers.</div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The voluntary split is also backward comp=
atible with old version transactions, they can be treated as tx for both cha=
ins and included in both chains later. For new version Tx after fork, some i=
dentifiers must be added , to mark the tx is for that chain only. The miners=
 need to choose one chain to mine.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">After several voluntary splits , the Blockchain basically become a=
 blocktree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. btc.00 btc.01 btc.10 btc.=
11 ), providing even more capacity.&nbsp;</div></div><div><span class=3D"HOE=
nZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"au=
to">Chaofan</div></div></font></span><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at=
 5:13 AM ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com" target=3D"_=
blank">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div>Good morning Chaofan Li,<br></div><div><br></div><div>What enf=
orces that bitcoin A is worth the same as bitcoin B?&nbsp; Or are they allow=
ed to eventually diverge in price?&nbsp; If they diverge in price, how is th=
at different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin Gold, B=
itcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards=
,<br></div><div>ZmnSCPxj<br></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"m_-5954414837=
857291361m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_signature_bl=
ock"><div class=3D"m_-5954414837857291361m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909=
568960831protonmail_signature_block-user m_-5954414837857291361m_-6919424486=
659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div><=
div class=3D"m_-5954414837857291361m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960=
831protonmail_signature_block-proton">Sent with <a href=3D"https://protonmai=
l.com" target=3D"_blank">ProtonMail</a> Secure Email.<br></div></div><div><b=
r></div><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div> On January 17=
, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class=3D"m_=
-5954414837857291361m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_q=
uote" type=3D"cite"><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Here I propose a=
 simple method to solve the scalability issue of blockchain.<br></div><div>I=
t is more like a financial trick rather than a technical solution.&nbsp;<br>=
</div><div><br></div><div>The technical part is very simple:&nbsp;<br></div>=
<div>Split ( hard fork ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. t=
wo blockchain A and B), voluntarily.&nbsp;<br></div><div>The two blockchains=
 are the same except for some identifiers to distinguish the two blockchains=
.<br></div><div>The coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one=
 or interfered by the other blockchain (&nbsp; considering so many hard fork=
s in the last year, the replay protection should work in this situation)<br>=
</div><div>Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half&nbsp; value of origin=
al one bitcoin.&nbsp;<br></div><div>Then, we have two almost same blockchain=
s and the capacity of the original blockchain is doubled theoretically.<br><=
/div><div>When sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randoml=
y and try to send through only&nbsp; one blockchain (If there is enough bitc=
oins)<br></div><div>I think it is a&nbsp; possible solution, if the communit=
y realize&nbsp; no previously owned asset value&nbsp; is lost.<br></div><div=
><br></div><div>The method is inspired by the <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedi=
a.org/wiki/Stock_split" target=3D"_blank">stock split</a>.<br></div><div>Whe=
n a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price halves.<br>=
</div><div>The market capitalization remains the same.<br></div><div>There i=
s no dilution of every shareholders' total assets.<br></div><div><br></div><=
div>The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be ch=
anged.<br></div><div>If the total supply increases, the value of a single co=
in will be diluted.<br></div><div>That is true.<br></div><div>However, the b=
ad part of inflation of fiat money is not&nbsp; diluted value of every unit o=
f fiat money caused by total supply increase.<br></div><div>The problem is t=
he increased supply is not delivered to everyone proportional to their previ=
ously owned money.<br></div><div>The increased supply is released through de=
bt expansion.<br></div><div>The people that can borrow more money with low i=
nterest ratio (during QE, it was nearly 0) can invest&nbsp; and get profit.<=
br></div><div>Or they don't even need to pay back the debt. The debt is left=
 to government, which might never pay back the debt, and some&nbsp; get more=
 money from government.<br></div><div>Others' money are diluted.<br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>With voluntary split of bitcoin, dilution of anyone's bitc=
oin assets won't happen.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></blockqu=
ote></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<=
wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/m=
ailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>____________________=
___________________________</span><br><span>bitcoin-dev mailing list</span><=
br><span><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></span><br><span><a href=3D"https://lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></=
html>=

--Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560--