It'd be good if you published a list of those patches. Also if anyone else repeats this experiment, note that there exist crypto techniques to make it more dif

It'd be good if you published a list of those patches. Also if anyone else repeats this experiment, note that there exist crypto techniques to make it more difficult for the experimenter to do the experiment dishonestly: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/811559259590660097 https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/811559259590660097 (I would have said "prove the experimenters honesty", but those techniques aren't a 100% thing - you could for instance do the whole commitment/random beacon process multiple times, and only publish the one set that gets the results you want.) edit: To be clear, submitting the same patch twice isn't a good way to do this - if I were a maintainer and learned that an identical patch had been received by two different pseudonyms, I'd certainly consider rejecting it purely on the basis that something fishy was going on; that test doesn't say much about maintainer bias in normal situations.