Expect the Orginals game to get even bigger - actual games

[mikeywith]

Not for Nintendo games though, right?

For Nintendo games.

[1714230812]

1714230812

[1714230812]

1714230812

[1714230812]

1714230812

[1714230812]

1714230812

[1714230812]

1714230812

[vjudeu]

The size of the game might be a problem since it seems it's 230GB on my drive but...you never now!

Note that the maximum "upload speed" is "4 MB/10 minutes", assuming that you block all other payments. Which means, you will need 230,000 MB to store, which means at least 57,500 blocks. Which also means something like 144 blocks per day, so at least 400 days, to even upload it. Realistically, you would need a few years for that (the more other payments you will block, the faster it will be).

And also, by assuming the minimal fee of one satoshi per virtual byte, it means 0.01 BTC per each megabyte. Which means, you will need at least 10 BTC to upload a single gigabyte, so for 230 GB, you will need 2,300 BTC. And by assuming just 10 satoshis per virtual kilobyte, it will grow into 23,000 BTC. Good luck.

Another thing is that people may enable pruning on their full nodes, and then, your "games" will no longer be available. Which means, if they do that, then I expect more pruned nodes, just because some full node operators may not be interested in sharing Ordinals. Or: those huge OP_NOPs can be skipped, and then a new version may allow Initial Blockchain Download, without checking those huge OP_NOPs, and just focus on validating signatures. Or: some node operators may decide to downgrade their nodes into pre-Segwit. There are many options: further abuse will finally lead us to some solutions.

Also note that the chain of signatures is signed only to the nearest coinbase transaction. Which means, everything below that can be skipped, and summed up, during Initial Blockchain Download. Here is an example of how coinbase transactions can be teleported from one chain into another: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5479988.msg63437260#msg63437260

- Ordinal users broadcast their transactions.
- Suddenly, users panic and deem Bitcoin as non-usable (which is partly true).
- Users propose solutions, most of which include the censorship of Ordinals.
- Nobody does a thing in response.
- A new wave of Ordinals is broadcasted.

If there will be more abuse, then expect solutions (like those mentioned above) to be deployed. Nothing is changed yet, because:

1. There are worse things than Ordinals.
2. Not enough developers are against Ordinals.
3. Some changes are not yet ready (for example assumeutxo). But sooner or later, they will be.

If you want to show, that you don't support Ordinals, then just enable pruning. If enough people will do so, then those Ordinals owners will need to start running their own full nodes (and taste their own medicine) to see their data.

[gmaxwell]

That is exactly what they are doing, I looked into their roadmap and they talk about things like saving the game status on the blockchain, next would likely be saving how many zombies you killed

Related developers implemented this on BSV a couple years ago, in "CryptoFights". It serves no purpose except as a cover to add garbage to the blockchain, no code was ever even written to read the data back out that they wrote in... and why would anyone do that? Writing game state to a immutable public ledger serves absolutely no purpose itself, but for the damage you can do to other people's ability to validate the ledger.

Don't really know why they just don't want to create a separate Blockchain for Ordinals and everyone would be happy.

.Because . Its . An . Attack.

Stuffing the blockchain full of unlawfully copied material is an attack, it's probably no accident that they picked the notoriously litigious nintendo as an initial target.

Doubling the UTXO set size with meaningless 'tokens' that have absolutely no purpose is an attack. (people talk about ordinals a lot but by far most of the congestion when I've looked is actually BRC-20)

If the usage were genuine they could save hundreds of millions of dollars in fees just doing it on their own blockchain, or almost any one of a thousand pre-existing ones.

The very same people doing this stuff are BSVers funded by Calvin Ayre.  This isn't speculation or a conspiracy theory, you can simply look them up. They carried out the same attacks on BSV, adding 165 GB to the utxo set in just five days (not the chain! the utxo set!), pushing off every other known non-calvin-controlled/funded node off the network.  At least in Bitcoin it mostly just drives fees up rather than forever destroying the network in days, because robustness to these kind of attacks was considered.  Many people are mistaking the protection *working* (fees go up making the attack astronomically expensive for the attacker) for the problem itself.

Most of you are absolutely fucking idiots. You deserve what you get.

Eventually you will figure it out as one by one your nodes are turned off by DMCA complaints, you get fucking bankrupted by vexatious copyright litigation and other bullshit resulting from attacks on the network that you were happy to pretend were actually good when you thought they could pump the price and you will look up and shout "save us!" and I'll whisper "No."

[stwenhao]

Eventually you will figure it out as one by one your nodes are turned off by DMCA complaints

It would be true, if the attackers would run some full nodes. But I doubt it. I doubt that a significant percentage of pro-Ordinals users from Bitcointalk actually run a full node. It is more likely that they use just some SPV nodes, and they only use external sites to show their Ordinals.

[gmaxwell]

Eventually you will figure it out as one by one your nodes are turned off by DMCA complaints

It would be true, if the attackers would run some full nodes.

I can't decode the misunderstanding required to produce that answer. Do you think the attackers would accomplish something by getting themselves shut down for copyright infringement?

The attackers goal in that attack is make every node operator a copyright infringer and then they or someone else can shut any one of them down with an email and the rights holder has standing to drag anyone to court and bankrupt them with legal fees before they ever get to the novel leal question.  The attacker never needs to run a full node, it's better for the attack that they don't.

[stwenhao]

Do you think the attackers would accomplish something by getting themselves shut down for copyright infringement?

No, I think non-aware attackers, that are regular users from Bitcointalk, who are pro-Ordinals, don't run any full node, so they can happily support Ordinals, without having to deal with the consequences.

attacks on the network that you were happy to pretend were actually good when you thought they could pump the price

I thought about those attackers. They support Ordinals, they tell, that "it is good for fees", but most likely, they are not miners, to benefit from those fees, and they are also not full node owners, to be affected by any of that. They are traders, or exchange-based users, so they have no reason to shout "save us!", because they will happily jump from Bitcoin to any altcoin or stablecoin, just to cash out, if there would be any troubles with Bitcoin.

[gmaxwell]

Fair enough, I hadn't been considering the ignorant enlisted-- e.g. people spamming out BRC-20 tokens because intentional attackers will buy them-- as attackers.  They don't intend to attack, they intend to "use" bitcoin to make money fast it just so happens that the actual attackers have managed to arrange things so that the "usage" is disruptive.

There are plenty of people who are irritated by the high fees created by this traffic who respond with suggestions to eliminate the resource limits, which are the only things holding back the attack and making it expensive-- and that's more where my warning applies.

And right you are that neither the attackers nor many of the people just trying to make a quick buck on the traffic give a damn if bitcoin is worth anything 5 years from now. But for the same reason, their concerns shouldn't weigh highly in everyone else's evaluation.

[Medusah]

If the usage were genuine they could save hundreds of millions of dollars in fees just doing it on their own blockchain, or almost any one of a thousand pre-existing ones.

Has it crossed your mind that hosting jpegs on the world's most secure blockchain is the one and only selling point of these blockheads?

Eventually you will figure it out as one by one your nodes are turned off by DMCA complaints

I might have skipped a season, but hasn't it always been possible to host copyrighted material on the blockchain?  The only change this time is that people are actively doing it.  They could have done this long time ago.  And I am pretty sure some did.

[philipma1957]

Fair enough, I hadn't been considering the ignorant enlisted-- e.g. people spamming out BRC-20 tokens because intentional attackers will buy them-- as attackers.  They don't intend to attack, they intend to "use" bitcoin to make money fast it just so happens that the actual attackers have managed to arrange things so that the "usage" is disruptive.

There are plenty of people who are irritated by the high fees created by this traffic who respond with suggestions to eliminate the resource limits, which are the only things holding back the attack and making it expensive-- and that's more where my warning applies.

And right you are that neither the attackers nor many of the people just trying to make a quick buck on the traffic give a damn if bitcoin is worth anything 5 years from now. But for the same reason, their concerns shouldn't weigh highly in everyone else's evaluation.

because this is to crush btc maxers

basically this is all about  power into wealth..

so if you only care about wealth per dollar and you mine you will switch to other pow coins.

just look at LTC/DOGE vs BTC. what is harder to attack via flooding with data

 So if you want all your pow to  be BTC it is tough risk

[mikeywith]

Stuffing the blockchain full of unlawfully copied material is an attack, it's probably no accident that they picked the notoriously litigious nintendo as an initial target.

But is it even technically possible to prevent such an attack on Bitcoin? I am not talking about witness data or OP-RETURN, but speaking of the UTXO set where even pruning is not an option. This "exploit" has been there since the inception of BTC. It's impossible to stop people from putting ALL types of data that we don't want. Of course, it gets easier and cheaper with the current implementation, but what has changed in that regard?

From an attacker's standpoint, wouldn't it be cheaper to just insert illegal or copyright content into the UTXO set and spend all these millions that are otherwise going to the miners in suing wallets and exchanges, forcing them to shut down their nodes?

Also, to what extent is such an attack even feasible? Where I live, by law, I am only obliged not to sell illegal content. If my PC was searched by the authorities and they found some copyright violation, there is nothing they can do to me. It's perfectly legal as long as I am not making money out of it. I can put some cracked software on a pen drive and send it to anyone, and I would still be operating within the legal boundaries of the law. Many countries don't deal with copyrights the way the U.S. deals with it. Is it feasible for Nintendo to go after everyone who runs a full node? Do the attackers really think they stand a chance to kill BTC taking that route?

I personally don't think that is doable. I also don't think that Ordinals/BRC-20 are an attack "by design". It's possible that the attack is a probable byproduct, but the main purpose is profit. I think calling them scammers would fit more than calling them attackers (speaking of the devs behind all of this nonsense NFTs/Ordinals/BRC-20 on all platforms), and they feed off the greed that many people think they can sell the scam to someone else at a higher price sometime in the future.

Most of you are absolutely fucking idiots. You deserve what you get.

Most members here are against Ordinals and BRC-20, not sure why you think they deserve what they get.

you will look up and shout "save us!"

Well then, maybe "save us now" before it's too late? what do you 'as a former core dev' think the solution should be, what would the average Joe in this forum do to stop this?

so if you only care about wealth per dollar and you mine you will switch to other pow coins.
just look at LTC/DOGE vs BTC. what is harder to attack via flooding with data

I believe the reason why other algorithms have a better earning ratio in terms of both power and cost is the fact that a tight equilibrium is hard to reach on them. Simply put, not enough investors trust those coins. In contrast, with BTC, it's the exact opposite. If your $1,000 investment in a BTC ASIC miner makes you $100 a month in profit, you know it would take way too long for that $100 to turn into 0. On the other hand, if that same $1,000 investment makes you $200 a month on another algorithm, you know that it won't take too long to get to $0. It's basically the higher the risk, the greater the reward. I think of mining altcoins as bond class B and BTC as bond class AA. The former is likely to net you more profit but is also more likely to make you lose more.

[philipma1957]

Stuffing the blockchain full of unlawfully copied material is an attack, it's probably no accident that they picked the notoriously litigious nintendo as an initial target.

But is it even technically possible to prevent such an attack on Bitcoin? I am not talking about witness data or OP-RETURN, but speaking of the UTXO set where even pruning is not an option. This "exploit" has been there since the inception of BTC. It's impossible to stop people from putting ALL types of data that we don't want. Of course, it gets easier and cheaper with the current implementation, but what has changed in that regard?

From an attacker's standpoint, wouldn't it be cheaper to just insert illegal or copyright content into the UTXO set and spend all these millions that are otherwise going to the miners in suing wallets and exchanges, forcing them to shut down their nodes?

Also, to what extent is such an attack even feasible? Where I live, by law, I am only obliged not to sell illegal content. If my PC was searched by the authorities and they found some copyright violation, there is nothing they can do to me. It's perfectly legal as long as I am not making money out of it. I can put some cracked software on a pen drive and send it to anyone, and I would still be operating within the legal boundaries of the law. Many countries don't deal with copyrights the way the U.S. deals with it. Is it feasible for Nintendo to go after everyone who runs a full node? Do the attackers really think they stand a chance to kill BTC taking that route?

I personally don't think that is doable. I also don't think that Ordinals/BRC-20 are an attack "by design". It's possible that the attack is a probable byproduct, but the main purpose is profit. I think calling them scammers would fit more than calling them attackers (speaking of the devs behind all of this nonsense NFTs/Ordinals/BRC-20 on all platforms), and they feed off the greed that many people think they can sell the scam to someone else at a higher price sometime in the future.

Most of you are absolutely fucking idiots. You deserve what you get.

Most members here are against Ordinals and BRC-20, not sure why you think they deserve what they get.

you will look up and shout "save us!"

Well then, maybe "save us now" before it's too late? what do you 'as a former core dev' think the solution should be, what would the average Joe in this forum do to stop this?

so if you only care about wealth per dollar and you mine you will switch to other pow coins.
just look at LTC/DOGE vs BTC. what is harder to attack via flooding with data

I believe the reason why other algorithms have a better earning ratio in terms of both power and cost is the fact that a tight equilibrium is hard to reach on them. Simply put, not enough investors trust those coins. In contrast, with BTC, it's the exact opposite. If your $1,000 investment in a BTC ASIC miner makes you $100 a month in profit, you know it would take way too long for that $100 to turn into 0. On the other hand, if that same $1,000 investment makes you $200 a month on another algorithm, you know that it won't take too long to get to $0. It's basically the higher the risk, the greater the reward. I think of mining altcoins as bond class B and BTC as bond class AA. The former is likely to net you more profit but is also more likely to make you lose more.

not that true for scrypt.  but for other coins very true.bitmain has always pushed dollars per watts and that any coin will do..

My goal if to have Sha-256/scrypt/gpu and switch on and off to what ever works best.

because I am thinking they are shoving us that way.

do I like this no but do I see it yes.

[goldkingcoiner]

That's what happens when the community (users, devs, node operators, miners, etc.) is lazy and doesn't do anything to fix the exploit that is being abused for about a year now. The abuse keeps growing.
It's only a matter of time before illegal stuff is going to be pushed to the bitcoin blockchain in a way that would raise enough alarms for the authorities to start doing something to bitcoin like banning it for example. Shutting down mining pools, seizing ASICs, and other crazy stuff... We know they're desperate for an excuse already specially since dedollarisation is getting stronger...

I completely agree. But I think once illegal stuff is pushed on to the Bitcoin blockchain (if it has not been, already) then the community and especially devs will be under much heavier pressure. I think that will be the point during which finally some progress will be made towards ending the entire madness called ordinals.

I am actually surprised that this whole issue managed to hang on to life for almost a year now. I would have really thought that the situation would be fixed by now. I guess people view Bitcoin more of a storage of value than a method of transaction. Otherwise people would be fighting much more actively against higher transaction fees...

 

[vjudeu]

But is it even technically possible to prevent such an attack on Bitcoin?

Of course. For example, altcoins like Grin, are resistant to those attacks by design. If you have only public keys and signatures, then that kind of chain is resistant. And if public keys and signatures are combined, and finally you have just a block with one huge transaction saying "consume all of those M inputs, and produce all of those N outputs", then there is no room for that kind of attack, because transaction data would be stripped during Initial Blockchain Download anyway.

Just read the whitepaper "7. Reclaiming Disk Space". Imagine that it is applied on the level of Initial Blockchain Download. Imagine that the chain of signatures is checked only to the nearest coinbase transaction, and everything else is confirmed by Proof of Work. It can be done, we are just not there yet.

I am not talking about witness data or OP-RETURN, but speaking of the UTXO set where even pruning is not an option.

Of course, it is possible to introduce UTXO size limit, in the same way as block size limit was introduced. And to have a fully-functioning chain, a single UTXO is all you need, to build a working sidechain, and just move it forward from time to time.

It's impossible to stop people from putting ALL types of data that we don't want.

Of course it is possible, if you stop serving that kind of data from your node. Which means, you can serve signatures, and stop on that. Signatures are correct, so you can move forward. If you want to get more data, then run your own node. And if you think that people will post data inside signatures, then note that signatures can be combined. So, if you can join transactions, then that kind of chain is resistant to inserting data. Because then, you can just cover batched transaction with enough Proof of Work, as a part of consensus rules, and move forward, without caring that some data was lost in the process. And to preserve some proofs, you can always commit pruned data into batched version, to keep normal users unaffected.

wouldn't it be cheaper to just insert illegal or copyright content into the UTXO set

This is what could be worse than Ordinals. And this will happen in the future, unless some UTXO limits will be introduced (for example: maximum N new UTXOs per block, or: consume M UTXOs to create N UTXOs, or: transaction fee, based on the number of UTXOs consumed and produced, or anything like that).

Edit: You can argue, that it is possible to flood the network, just by putting data in unspendable public keys. But again, it is possible to prevent that with Pedersen Commitments. For example:

Code:

x    //private key of any user
x*G  //public key of any user
H(G) //can be set to N-of-N multisig
a    //amount of satoshis
rct  //taproot address

rct=x*G+a*H(G)

rct1=x1*G+a1*H(G)
rct2=x2*G+a2*H(G)

rct=rct1+rct2=(x1+x2)*G+(a1+a2)*H(G)

And then, imagine an attacker, flooding the network with "<pubkey> <amount>" entries. First, that attacker will quickly run out of money. Second, all of those transactions will be joined into some "rct", flying on-chain, from which it would be possible to take "a" coins, by using "x" key. That means, you can attach and detach any set of keys and amounts, from that kind of address. The only missing part is introducing some new sighashes on Taproot, and allowing users to spend those coins in this way, and making sure the design is "cryptographically secure".

So yes, it is possible, but just nobody implemented it yet.

[NotATether]

But is it even technically possible to prevent such an attack on Bitcoin?

Of course. For example, altcoins like Grin, are resistant to those attacks by design. If you have only public keys and signatures, then that kind of chain is resistant. And if public keys and signatures are combined, and finally you have just a block with one huge transaction saying "consume all of those M inputs, and produce all of those N outputs", then there is no room for that kind of attack, because transaction data would be stripped during Initial Blockchain Download anyway.

We can also severely penalize storing arbitrary data on the blockchain by making witness data starting with OP_FALSE OP_IF taxable as standard OP_RETURN bytes.

Luke-jr tried to merge the commit, but failed because there was too much bickering on the Github issue. Also the commit didn't even work anyway (it failed its Continuous Integration tests).

[Amphenomenon]

I am actually surprised that this whole issue managed to hang on to life for almost a year now. I would have really thought that the situation would be fixed by now. I guess people view Bitcoin more of a storage of value than a method of transaction. Otherwise people would be fighting much more actively against higher transaction fees...

 

Literally true and is hypocritical just to see some members of this forum being supportive of this trash, claiming bitcoin is for everyone and everyone has what they want to do with it, were as this is far from what was written in the white paper and Satoshi spoke about this here on btt :https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 while if you speak about this some will say bitcoin is bigger than Satoshi now, like are you all not ashamed, after speaking is Bitcoin or Bitcoin and now have more from using it for your daily transactions, the altcoin you critise one time is what you use now and some still have the full courage to say Ethereum has a larger number of individuals using it for transactions than bitcoin, where as we already know that Blockchain is flooded by dev mainly creating scam tokens and NFTs and  victims of these scam.

The fact is that they don't actually care much about Bitcoin except from making more money, as long as nothing affects this, then they see Bitcoin as just fine and OK even after all they have spoken about altcoins and CEX, they are not ashamed to run to them (hypocrite). I guess Bitcoin is for everyone to them doesn't include those that use it for small transactions

[BlackHatCoiner]

1. There are worse things than Ordinals.

Like what?

If you want to show, that you don't support Ordinals, then just enable pruning. If enough people will do so, then those Ordinals owners will need to start running their own full nodes (and taste their own medicine) to see their data.

This sounds like a really bad idea. First things first, my full node only serves them bandwidth-wise. It does not act as their Ordinal explorer. If I don't serve them bandwidth-wise, someone else will, probably mining pools or just people who would rather buy a good Internet connection and a terabyte drive than their 1000th Ordinal.

Secondly, suspending my node's access to the blockchain for the sake of the Ordinals sounds like an actual defeat. Pruning comes with disadvantages on an individual level and we all know about it.

[vjudeu]

1. There are worse things than Ordinals.

Like what?

For example UTXO flood. And of course, there are worse things than UTXO flood, but some bugs are not yet disclosed, and there is no reason to reveal them now, if nobody is affected yet (because we don't have UTXO-based Initial Blockchain Download yet, and some attacks can be applied only if you apply some "fix" on Ordinals, and each attack vector is dependent on your exact "patch").

This sounds like a really bad idea.

Why? Nobody stops you from having that data, and storing them on your drive. The problem is when you serve those data to the users. Which means, if you have full node for yourself, and pruned node for the outside world, then you are safe from DMCA complaints, because then you don't serve those Ordinals.

If I don't serve them bandwidth-wise, someone else will

It is only true, as long as Initial Blockchain Download requires downloading everything. But it doesn't have to be the case. It is possible to check only signatures for Ordinals, and skip their data entirely. They are just huge OP_NOPs. But if you can verify signature hash, then you don't have to store signature data.

Pruning comes with disadvantages on an individual level and we all know about it.

Of course, if you use only pruned node, then there are some disadvantages. But if you have only pruned node, exposed to the public, and there is some full node behind it, then you can handle everything fine. Because the strength of Ordinals lies in the assumption, that their data will always be available, no matter what. And the key to stop that attack, is to break that assumption. And how to break that assumption? By stopping serving that data, and by implementing Initial Blockchain Download in another, simplified way.

And of course, there could be better ways to deal with Ordinals. But as long as nothing is done, to stop that attack, then pruning is the only widely-deployed option, that you can safely use. At least for publicly-exposed nodes, because of course, you can still have a full node for your personal use. But making it public is now more risky, than it was, so I guess more people will do that, if no other solution will be deployed.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For example UTXO flood.

That is probably what's going to happen if you attempt to censor Ordinals. The Ordinal users will find another loophole, and flooding the UTXO set is their last resort.

It is possible to check only signatures for Ordinals, and skip their data entirely. They are just huge OP_NOPs. But if you can verify signature hash, then you don't have to store signature data.

That is actually an interest approach. However:

- That will split the network in terms of clients, similar as to how anti-segwit and segwit nodes operate separately (e.g., anti-segwit nodes ignore witness).
- Everything inside OP_NOP will be ignored, including potentially genuine, non-Ordinal content.

Also, how can you verify the signature hash if you don't have the full message?

[vjudeu]

That is probably what's going to happen if you attempt to censor Ordinals.

No, it will happen anyway, even if you don't "censor" any transaction. It depends if UTXO-level batching will be there or not. If it will be there, then many UTXOs can be summarized into single ones. But if not, then the network will be flooded, and pruned nodes will suffer from that attack. Which means, the "fix" for Ordinals should also "fix" that issue, and its consequences. In other case, the situation would be only worse.

and flooding the UTXO set is their last resort

There are better ways to attack the network, but I don't want to help the attackers by publicly revealing those ways. Also because some of them cannot be used, as long as some "fixes" for Ordinals are not yet applied.

That will split the network in terms of clients

Every soft-fork causes that. It would be no worse, but in what other way you want to upgrade the network? The current software is not resistant to Ordinals attack, which means, that any patch will cause a potential split. But if Proof of Work will follow, then no split will happen (or rather: every split would be called an altcoin, because those users would use hard-fork to stop the "patch").

Everything inside OP_NOP will be ignored, including potentially genuine, non-Ordinal content

If something is needed for consensus, it will be processed. It is only about ignoring OP_NOPs. And also, "potentially genuine, non-Ordinal content" can be standardized. And then, standardized transactions could be batched.

Also, how can you verify the signature hash if you don't have the full message?

Because of double SHA-256, you can just keep the result of a single SHA-256, and validate it in the same way, as OP_CHECKDATASIG would work. Also, you can apply any kind of zero-knowledge proof, which means, if that would be shorter than the data inside Ordinals, then you can replace it in that way.

Another thing is that you only have to verify the chain of signatures, to the nearest coinbase transaction. Everything below that, was turned into fees, which means, the same transactions could be re-created on any other compatible chain, out of different fees. And if a given coinbase transaction is "sufficiently confirmed to be spent", then everything below that also is.

And if you have all coinbase transactions, and all "coin flows", then you can be sure, that no coins were produced out of thin air. You don't need historical "everything turned into fees" transactions to prove that the chain of signatures is valid. And it can be a standard procedure to "turn coins into fees, claim them in the coinbase transaction, and restart the chain of signatures", just to compress it further, when needed.

[BlackHatCoiner]

No, it will happen anyway, even if you don't "censor" any transaction. It depends if UTXO-level batching will be there or not.

But, why will it happen anyway? Do you mean that it is simply possible to happen given enough incentive?

Every soft-fork causes that. It would be no worse, but in what other way you want to upgrade the network?

I see. So you're arguing for softfork. I don't watch the mailing list lately, I think since the Linux foundation announced they will be shutting down their mailing servers. If I recall right, you were active in bitcoin-dev, so let me ask you, is there discussion about implementing a softfork for this very purpose? I mean serious consideration, not just beating the air.