Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3555389C for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 13:41:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149077.authsmtp.com (outmail149077.authsmtp.com [62.13.149.77]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D64195 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 13:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247]) by punt24.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u49Df5as069130; Mon, 9 May 2016 14:41:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u49Df1GW041074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 May 2016 14:41:02 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83F0E40087; Mon, 9 May 2016 13:39:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <2273040.Bd6rtJjYLF@garp> References: <5727D102.1020807@mattcorallo.com> <86058327.pdmfHP132A@kiwi> <CAAS2fgRiSNNHA5psaUYOM6rHfjJ1aOgWhnsT8Z-pU4FBcR_65w@mail.gmail.com> <2273040.Bd6rtJjYLF@garp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 13:40:55 +0000 To: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>, Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> Message-ID: <CADCCD57-390E-44C2-9641-FC57E49F74E0@petertodd.org> X-Server-Quench: abbcc4ba-15eb-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgsUFVQNAgsB AmAbWlBeVFx7WWE7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUQFhdUoA cXkeVhhycAEIf39x ZggzDCIID0AoJFt8 RxsGCGwHMGF9OjNL BV1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXAyNQ WggGMRo4RUEAHXYG ShQLDH0FPHVt X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 13:41:09 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 9 May 2016 07:32:59 GMT-04:00, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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-----