{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-24\n📝 Original message:Its more of a statement of \"in the future, we expect things to happen\nwhich would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state here that\nit is not against spec to do so\". Could reword it as \"NODE_BLOOM is\ndistinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise NODE_BLOOM but\nnot NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some\nproposals may make this more useful in the future)\"?\n\nMatt\n\nOn 08/24/15 15:29, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:\n\u003e\u003e NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise\n\u003e\u003e NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode\n\u003e\u003e which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have).\n\u003e \n\u003e But is this useful without having decided on a way to signal which blocks pruned nodes do have?\n\u003e \n\u003e It looks like the part between paranthesis is speculation and should be left to a future BIP. \n\u003e \n\u003e Wladimir\n\u003e"}