eric at voskuil.org [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2021-03-03 đź“ť Original message:> and all transactions ...
đź“… Original date posted:2021-03-03
đź“ť Original message:> and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government.
>From what do you derive the moral judgement “should” in this context?
> The value proposition is … because people will trust the system?
So, it’s valuable because it’s trusted? Trusted to do what exactly? What that government money doesn’t already do, specifically.
> If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?
Nothing is “necessary”. Consensus is an agreement among people. It’s voluntary. Any person can choose to leave, create or join another consensus, or stay where they are.
> BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.
Exactly, people are free to do what they want. Nobody “should” do anything except that which they want to do. This and this alone is the “highest value” if one accepts the moral principle of non-aggression. You do not appear to, and I’m afraid that may be well outside the consensus view among core bitcoin developers (the people you are talking to).
e
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:55 PM
To: Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Good Afternoon,
All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the same <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs>; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.
Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?
The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_____
From: Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org <mailto:eric at voskuil.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au <mailto:willtech at live.com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com <mailto:arielluaces at gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?
Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?
e
On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:

Good Afternoon,
I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
<https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw>; &t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
from this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>;
www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>;
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_____
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com <mailto:arielluaces at gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au <mailto:willtech at live.com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>;
At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
Good Evening,
Thank-you for your advice @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>; on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_____
From: Jeremy <jlrubin at mit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au <mailto:willtech at live.com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
Do you have a source on your reporting?
You may wish to rescind your nack.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
Good Afternoon,
It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>;
www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>;
and other projects
earn.com/willtech <http://earn.com/willtech>;
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson <http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>;
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210303/3091d805/attachment-0001.html>;
đź“ť Original message:> and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government.
>From what do you derive the moral judgement “should” in this context?
> The value proposition is … because people will trust the system?
So, it’s valuable because it’s trusted? Trusted to do what exactly? What that government money doesn’t already do, specifically.
> If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?
Nothing is “necessary”. Consensus is an agreement among people. It’s voluntary. Any person can choose to leave, create or join another consensus, or stay where they are.
> BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.
Exactly, people are free to do what they want. Nobody “should” do anything except that which they want to do. This and this alone is the “highest value” if one accepts the moral principle of non-aggression. You do not appear to, and I’m afraid that may be well outside the consensus view among core bitcoin developers (the people you are talking to).
e
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:55 PM
To: Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Good Afternoon,
All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the same <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs>; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.
Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?
The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_____
From: Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org <mailto:eric at voskuil.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au <mailto:willtech at live.com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com <mailto:arielluaces at gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?
Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?
e
On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:

Good Afternoon,
I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
<https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw>; &t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
from this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>;
www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>;
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_____
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com <mailto:arielluaces at gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au <mailto:willtech at live.com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>;
At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
Good Evening,
Thank-you for your advice @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>; on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_____
From: Jeremy <jlrubin at mit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech at live.com.au <mailto:willtech at live.com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
Do you have a source on your reporting?
You may wish to rescind your nack.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
Good Afternoon,
It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>;
www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>;
and other projects
earn.com/willtech <http://earn.com/willtech>;
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson <http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>;
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210303/3091d805/attachment-0001.html>;