š
Original date posted:2016-05-09
š 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-----
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 17:50:19
in reply to nevent1qā¦2276
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:50:19Event JSON
{
"id": "eec2c360c9fe8672d322d6a8d08bf24a8c786681ce52efc10fdda2a3fcc8d332",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160219,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"37fe3d2b857e9599a14c87e34f77dee62e90bb6721200fbd7752c60823834c1e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e3bd28c5d590b84e6b73d2bf489b0308828c727eb71785e50eae020f1037982d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"bc4b5c3c366f36f93aa3e261f5c7832ecb85137537baf5e8f00a4321e85f0477"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-05-09\nš 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-----",
"sig": "2646850c643a8bc9182f1dea661ca496654ed209d4d71424dd4c016d7c00453ea09b0a450fe0f88579b47104826d70dbb03b1b9d866eb7b4df8b484789e8968f"
}