Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 13:40:55 +0000

On 9 May 2016 07:32:59 GMT-04:00, Tom via bitcoin-dev <[email-masked]> 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.