{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7h","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7h","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-01-19\n📝 Original message:I'm a bit confused.  It's been a long time since I looked at protobuf\n(and will have to dig into it soon), but I seem to recall it doesn't\nhave any of the determinism properties you guys just said.  It is\nintended to allow you to skip details of the on-the-wire representations\nand just send a bunch of named fields between systems.  I thought there\nwas no guarantee that two identical protobuf structures will get\nserialized identically...?\n\n\n\n\nOn 01/19/2015 02:57 PM, Richard Brady wrote:\n\u003e Thanks guys, great answers. \n\u003e\n\u003e The design choice certainly makes a lot more sense now regardless of\n\u003e whether one agrees with it or not.\n\u003e\n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e Richard\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.\n\u003e GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.\n\u003e Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.\n\u003e Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150119/c6c82c2c/attachment.html\u003e"}