rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-05-09 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 9 May 2016 07:32:59 GMT-04:00, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >On Monday 09 May 2016 10:43:02 Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> Service bits are not generally a good mechanism for negating optional >> peer-local parameters. > >Service bits are exactly the right solution to indicate additional p2p >feature-support. > > >> [It's a little disconcerting that you appear to be maintaining a fork >> and are unaware of this.] > >ehm... Can you please explain why you moved the above part of gmaxwell's reply to here, when previously it was right after: >> > Wait, you didn't steal the variable length encoding from an >existing >> > standard and you programmed a new one? >> >> This is one of the two variable length encodings used for years in >> Bitcoin Core. This is just the first time it's shown up in a BIP. here? Editing gmaxwells reply like that changes the tone of the message significantly. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJXMJNd AAoJEGOZARBE6K+yz4MH/0fQNM8SQdT7a1zljOSJW17ZLs6cEwVXZc/fOtvrNnOa CkzXqylPrdT+BWBhPOwDlrzRa/2w5JAJDHRFoR8ZEidasxNDuSfhT3PwulBxmBqs qoXhg0ujzRv9736vKENzMI4y2HbfHmqOrlLSZrlk8zqBGmlp1fMqVjFriQN66dnV 6cYFVyMVz0x/e4mXw8FigSQxkDAJ6gnfSInecQuZLT7H4g2xomIs6kQbqULHAylS sFaK4uXy7Vr/sgBbitEQPDHGwywRoA+7EhExb2XpvL6hdyQbL1G1i6SPxGkwKg7R MAuBPku/FraGo+qfcaA8R7eYKmyP4qZfZly317Aoo6Q= =NtSN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----