On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@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
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyhow -- back to the original proposal. I'm fine with setting aside
part of the service bit space for experiments.
ACK
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name
wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014, at 9:57 am, Wladimir wrote:
Yes, as I said in the github topic
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest
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.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at
4 matches
Mail list logo
