Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-06-18 📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-06-18
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> I wrote a patch for string-based name extensions, circa 2011-2012. I
> agree that is preferable to unreadable bits, for reasons you cite.
>
> However, it was noted that extensions (or UUIDs etc.) would not be
> propagated around the network in "addr" messages, as service bits are.

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't remember your patch.

Ugh, yes, propagating all extensions in `addr` messages is not how I
imagined this to work.

But then there would need to be an alternative way to discover nodes
that offer a certain extension. Alas, this moves it from a
straightforward and common sense change to a significant change to the
protocol.

Wladimir