{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-05-09\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\n\n\nOn 9 May 2016 07:32:59 GMT-04:00, Tom via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003eOn Monday 09 May 2016 10:43:02 Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Service bits are not generally a good mechanism for negating optional\n\u003e\u003e peer-local parameters.\n\u003e\n\u003eService bits are exactly the right solution to indicate additional p2p\n\u003efeature-support.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [It's a little disconcerting that you appear to be maintaining a fork\n\u003e\u003e and are unaware of this.]\n\u003e\n\u003eehm...\n\nCan you please explain why you moved the above part of gmaxwell's reply to here, when previously it was right after:\n\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Wait, you didn't steal the variable length encoding from an\n\u003eexisting\n\u003e\u003e \u003e standard and you programmed a new one?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This is one of the two variable length encodings used for years in\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin Core. This is just the first time it's shown up in a BIP.\n\nhere?\n\nEditing gmaxwells reply like that changes the tone of the message significantly.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\niQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJXMJNd\nAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yz4MH/0fQNM8SQdT7a1zljOSJW17ZLs6cEwVXZc/fOtvrNnOa\nCkzXqylPrdT+BWBhPOwDlrzRa/2w5JAJDHRFoR8ZEidasxNDuSfhT3PwulBxmBqs\nqoXhg0ujzRv9736vKENzMI4y2HbfHmqOrlLSZrlk8zqBGmlp1fMqVjFriQN66dnV\n6cYFVyMVz0x/e4mXw8FigSQxkDAJ6gnfSInecQuZLT7H4g2xomIs6kQbqULHAylS\nsFaK4uXy7Vr/sgBbitEQPDHGwywRoA+7EhExb2XpvL6hdyQbL1G1i6SPxGkwKg7R\nMAuBPku/FraGo+qfcaA8R7eYKmyP4qZfZly317Aoo6Q=\n=NtSN\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}