summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/c6/8e912268da4b43899f594925a771da5d2889fe
blob: 6f79fe87322f178243c5cfd9eafea21794587cf8 (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
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
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
Return-Path: <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671FBC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457F04ED76
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id FRf9Lml64IE0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD6F84ED71
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id n195so26034749ybg.9
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:55:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=oxAy9JxQcb6Sk6FKCrt1D0kQg25ndQg757oZspWj3b0=;
 b=CLNthzoDGveDn7uRsFhYdKjfiH2UwdpqDXMmPrCYGQQlQEF1oxTJu7yjSAibfnJe5O
 JvVJMs7tjeQ8LHbiTJAbU+HosPbLMOywezcu4G2DAqkmCBeWU6hVFE9Wj+UYU+eQJQOK
 OJhlj2ONhSQMtAJm0oPTBOvUM7F4VcpaWqhpd52xXxB9X0sz/8ryhwOgx+FF+WwRZy5o
 6PSkNBY9PrhkghzLjfCzhP0UB7Nmlpl7uuDURBhqkC+Z3rz4uLjwvnsa9xUUmfVNX9PB
 cPfxR+y/3AoUJfUeRYpyCcs/erlJHPjNvRBCF1M90f4N+ckxvroNcVLKiYtWgBhUU/4d
 TvYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=oxAy9JxQcb6Sk6FKCrt1D0kQg25ndQg757oZspWj3b0=;
 b=aTAT+kTKg7faEjL27WLa5pkrSUdDxUPjLMslQHlSDCsa7BuK3S1gHvNwepE0TU30eI
 yarvC+55426wNNiA9ZBtX6sAHYEgv4GbD8yKAsaC7o8Y7E9zV8BdQmrVrtyj1dr6hE3U
 pFTRcD1x1K6q6uTiTA6OQIMQ9ydn5+oXP8lGBdTZA7hgbaoJBPc1JB9dldb9bfyH3LGL
 ExMR4pGQgzf8q8FkFsPrOhE1w15eZFTON+dqFnfAL27bPLqO466HP2QRyBTpuba1IuY7
 RGHTnuGgASKRUk5WUCI73M5FjLKWfKdG/xo1Kk8L9mTHVo5ckL/w5zPYbQmIp3tJRvT3
 vWSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YEO4XmDrJQkoyRC8pOzOZcaKHWitQKmVGdln1VNJ74+iHrhuZ
 wmEucp/VERzi7sbl7FbhNnJbFDZtsWK6a6oDbvk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHX42zcNyij/x7i654QBpOgesRLsrJmv+9J2LR3NaX8S/uqSLsmvYvlvPme/aLoa89o8u0S3IfHIL3H6RlP7w=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:591:: with SMTP id l17mr20416178ybp.60.1615568101520; 
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:55:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YkXXxUdZFYTa1c-F=-FzoQQVtV3GUmE2Okec-zRAD3xS1qAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMnpzfop8ttqjMAKoS37zpQV6WiZfi1Bn+y_e-HaepTiD4Vm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB0O3SVNyr_t23Y0LyT0mSaf6LONFRLYJ8qzO7rcdJFnrGccFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwkSCu=2UOEhzFBzGDHo1c=Ewqsnxp632ke3jdH1ff5WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL31M5DAULLRtCwjPYHaPVqsVqREUg6WQ2-cuj23SNk=BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwBMG6YUAhf-2U5EV5Ep5RgG2foc9chramNFN5=AQ=-EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL3E-rWW9aJkwre_3UF44vbNxPH2436DvaQdHoqEQ5b+eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXyBmOootb=Kt6CH3yquYVnAZd=fJQqiF_A3p_pkB8QC3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALC81CMDQf4PqxRisQw58OL7QSFeMcQTvLMvmtOGJ_ya4-dhLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXyP=BQ_a42J=RE7HJFcJ73atyrt4KWKUG8LbsbW=u4b5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXw1AiMqCoPk_pUOdDMfkGF_T+aURGAjGK=MTa7jtAQchg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXy1Y407UDdEjRVjzBFOCmaUKDoZkvqtXkxkmXmMdNrwBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgKPga1Cr3B7vHgGWrLdTzt-DqgbcngWNdyYF7QoAcER8w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgKPga1Cr3B7vHgGWrLdTzt-DqgbcngWNdyYF7QoAcER8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:54:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YkXXz9aHfZtt-it_8w4ovF=-QaZ4_9vwDS0Kz36qhHwVDC5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:02:31 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST
 Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:05 -0000

--000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
might rephrase it.

In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.

This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally
looking into developing as a hard fork.

Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:

> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
> and some degree of technical merit.
>
> i suggest you start here:
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0
>
> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
> equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>
> - erik
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084
> >
> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference
> implementation.
> >
> > Best regards, Andrew
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo:
> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.media=
wiki
> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft
> mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I wa=
nt
> to work on.
> >>
> >> Best regards, Andrew
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [off-list]
> >>>
> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing
> a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards, Andrew
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <
> ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own repositor=
y
> >>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR
> >>>>
> >>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,
> >>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes
> running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had
> trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The
> point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still =
be
> able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was
> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP
> pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any
> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way
> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies
> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions s=
ay
> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since
> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually
> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but
> rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentall=
y
> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already
> established some interest for at least a draft.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Does that seem fine?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Best regards, Andrew
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <
> keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and
> non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from=
 a
> hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't
> disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you hav=
e
> supporting evidence for this?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Keagan
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev =
<
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is
> much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is mo=
re
> commonly used then PoST.
> >>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof
> of Work as it normally stands:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space
> >>>> >>> It has rarely been done though given the technological complexit=
y
> of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are lots o=
f
> benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into
> numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptograp=
hy
> community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only against
> this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given
> how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn't =
be
> of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining.
> I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way
> Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs updating
> regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the halting problem the
> traditional rule of millions of years to break all of Bitcoin's
> cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to
> eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing algo in the
> future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in
> regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes a
> polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the first
> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
> complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to it=
s
> chain.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separate issue, proposing a
> hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of
> capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital
> expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more "useful"
> proofs of work."
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and
> non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from=
 a
> hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't
> disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is
> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized=
.
> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. M=
y
> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevent=
s
> such an event from happening in the future, if it was to ever happen. I
> have various research in regards to this area and work alot with
> distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such a
> proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographic proo=
f
> myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can get :=
)
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space in
> regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking=
.
> >>>> >>>
> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop=
-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Best regards,  Andrew
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <
> keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work
> to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the wo=
rk
> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when
> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction
> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different
> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
> the security of the network in the process.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing
> algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by
> mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining
> hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is
> because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and
> subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even mor=
e
> risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the
> bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where
> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in deciding what th=
e
> new "useful" proof of work should be.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> Keagan
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-de=
v
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my
> cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackl=
es
> problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC
> network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I d=
o
> want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to
> this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things su=
ch
> as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the ve=
ry
> least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at
> least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just
> let me know on the preferred format?
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> Best regards, Andrew
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards
> to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get th=
e
> most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrarines=
s
> of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki
> format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> Best regards, Andrew
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <
> c1.devrandom@niftybox.net> wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ryan and Andrew,
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>   https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
> >>>> >>>>>>>>     "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
> >>>> >>>>>>>>     on | 04 Aug 2015
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the
> mining market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.  =
It
> does not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative
> externalities and that we should move to other resources.  I would argue
> that the negative externalities will go away soon because of the move to
> renewables, so the point is likely moot.
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >>>>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key=
 validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to t=
hose keys. I might rephrase it.=C2=A0<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to =
get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to=
 follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references i=
mplementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">This will take about 400=
 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing=
 as a hard fork.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Keep in=
 mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do =
at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proof=
s and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></d=
iv><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 =
AM Erik Aronesty &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:erik@q32.com">erik@q32.com</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">secp236k1 isn&#39;t a hashing=
 algo.=C2=A0 =C2=A0your BIP needs about 10 more pages<br>
and some degree of technical merit.<br>
<br>
i suggest you start here:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn" rel=3D"noreferrer nore=
ferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0" rel=3D"noref=
errer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=
=3D225690.0</a><br>
<br>
proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0i always<=
br>
suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven<br>
equivalent.=C2=A0 =C2=A0you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows age=
d,<br>
burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.<br>
<br>
- erik<br>
<br>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: <a href=3D"https://git=
hub.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_bl=
ank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference=
 implementation.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:l=
oneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">loneroasso=
ciation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: <a href=
=3D"https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.med=
iawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/=
Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki</a><br>
&gt;&gt; Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into d=
raft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I=
 want to work on.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">loner=
oassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; [off-list]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion befor=
e doing a pull request on BIP&#39;s repo as the best way to handle it.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">ricard=
ojdfilipe@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own=
 repository<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you c=
an do a PR<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg</a>&gt; escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage =
of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mini=
ng. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt.=
 The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would sti=
ll be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this=
 was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; That said, I think the best way to move forward is to=
 submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2&#39;s draft =
format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust&#39;s c=
omments. That way people don&#39;t have to get emails everytime there is a =
reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since t=
he instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have d=
one that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn&#39;t me=
rged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I&#39;m also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bit=
coin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don&#39;t want=
 to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list an=
d we already established some interest for at least a draft.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Does that seem fine?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noref=
errer">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; A large portion of BTC is already mined thro=
ugh AWS servers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them =
would benefit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that m=
anner wouldn&#39;t disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as we=
ll.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish c=
laim. Do you have supporting evidence for this?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Keagan<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation =
via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Actually I mentioned a proof of space and tim=
e hybrid which is much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confus=
ion as PoC is more commonly used then PoST.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; There is a way to make PoC cryptographically =
compatible w/ Proof of Work as it normally stands: <a href=3D"https://en.wi=
kipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_b=
lank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; It has rarely been done though given the tech=
nological complexity of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatibl=
e. There are lots of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I alr=
eady looked into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in=
 the cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you h=
ave only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partial=
ly true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocat=
ion wouldn&#39;t be of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC=
 specific mining. I&#39;m working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes tha=
t. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs up=
dating regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the halting proble=
m the traditional rule of millions of years to break all of Bitcoin&#39;s c=
ryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to eventual=
ly radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing algo in the future rega=
rdless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in regards to the hy=
brid cryptography I&#39;m aiming to provide which includes a polynomial tim=
e algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the first version of my B=
TC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such complexity in th=
e future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to its chain.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; In regards to the argument, &quot;As a separa=
te issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate th=
e enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentiv=
ize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these =
more &quot;useful&quot; proofs of work.&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; A large portion of BTC is already mined throu=
gh AWS servers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them w=
ould benefit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that ma=
nner wouldn&#39;t disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as wel=
l.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; There are other reasons why a cryptography up=
grade like this is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn&#39;=
t fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from bei=
ng entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography =
in a way that prevents such an event from happening in the future, if it wa=
s to ever happen. I have various research in regards to this area and work =
alot with distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such =
a proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographic proo=
f myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can get :=
)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Anyways just something to consider. We are in=
 the same space in regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argumen=
t against staking.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-yo=
u-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://hackernoon.com/eth=
ereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-p=
i3s3yjl</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClell=
and &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" re=
l=3D"noreferrer">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It is important to understand that it is =
critical for the work to be &quot;useless&quot; in order for the security m=
odel to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actor=
s to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the margi=
nal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work w=
as useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway.=
 This actually degrades the security of the network in the process.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As a separate issue, proposing a hard for=
k in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital e=
xpenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure=
 into mining hardware that may compute these more &quot;useful&quot; proofs=
 of work. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considere=
d unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire networ=
k at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to =
that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a posi=
tion where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in decidin=
g what the new &quot;useful&quot; proof of work should be.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All of these things make the Bitcoin netw=
ork worse off.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Keagan<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Fou=
ndation via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Also in regards to my other email, I =
forgot to iterate that my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency=
 category but also tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting whic=
h is something the BTC network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sa=
ke of simplicity, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the i=
ssues in regards to this manner and can provide useful insight to the commu=
nity. If things such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard fork=
s, I feel at the very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and =
cryptography does at least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can se=
nd you my BIP, just let me know on the preferred format?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero =
Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank" rel=3D"noreferrer">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi, this isn&#39;t about the ener=
gy efficient argument in regards to renewables or mining devices but a bett=
er cryptography layer to get the most out of your hashing for validation. I=
 do understand the arbitrariness of it, but do want to still propose a docu=
ment. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it as my pro=
posal?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Dev=
random &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:c1.devrandom@niftybox.net" target=3D"_blank" r=
el=3D"noreferrer">c1.devrandom@niftybox.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 A=
M Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"ht=
tps://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" =
target=3D"_blank">https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;=
Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 0=
4 Aug 2015<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Just to belabor this a bit, t=
he paper demonstrates that the mining market will tend to expend resources =
equivalent to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does not prove that mining work has to=
 expend *energy* as a primary cost.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Some might argue that energy =
expenditure has negative externalities and that we should move to other res=
ources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the negative externalities will go away so=
on because of the move to renewables, so the point is likely moot.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; _____________________________________=
__________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; _____________________________________________=
__<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/=
mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/=
listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https=
://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0--