{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:On Aug 10, 2015 7:03 PM, \"odinn via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\nNote that I've\n\u003e been in favor of going ahead with Cameron Garnham's dynamic softfork\n\u003e proposal right now, which can be seen at http://is.gd/DiFuRr\n\nNo offence, but I think that anyone who claims a block size limit change\ncan be done as a soft fork has some basic reading to do first.\n\nAlso, please keep this thread about Lightning.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/7032bed6/attachment.html\u003e"}