rich1.0npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gahttps://nostr.ae/npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2ganjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Replying because. On 08/10/2015 10:14 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2015 7:03 PM, "odinn via bitcoin-dev" > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: Note that > I've >> been in favor of going ahead with Cameron Garnham's dynamic >> softfork proposal right now, which can be seen at >> http://is.gd/DiFuRr > > No offence, but I think that anyone who claims a block size limit > change can be done as a soft fork has some basic reading to do > first. Technically, my proposal has been thus: "Note that I've been in favor of going ahead with Cameron Garnham's dynamic softfork proposal right now, which can be seen at http://is.gd/DiFuRr - testing it out, seeing how that works, and at the same time making preparations for moving forward with Garzik's BIP 100 (which could be tailored or refined based on additional data gathered, without being turned into a controversial fork" To have quoted it only in part was unfair. > > Also, please keep this thread about Lightning. Agreed. > > -- Pieter > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVyOMjAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CmAQIAI5XrAIa8VrkFYLtJ8s0CHqj kZrMatH2oVGGaENVChVDU7u4SGnMQdiJF32QY5Olih3ia1rAx9n43tiyPyUp8y0S iLudwFfyvmzSyRdoLnTRbDYkiNUnuy9lppZsL+AtQWCpMLxBIObs1NnzP7je4Qn2 a8lWklMf9mmlCyhyah7kJPdZzECwfpz2ARk68iUUAuqqLcFM2afmzcgLh2PuDRhU 6Hjw7crTXA5AhPSeNNz1az0cq5MTUv46SAr3mbAiMjFwz7tFWSWEGMTaTdQ/Igwe JeMARTJuxY7QL1XHAmKgfHUEi6mmW2LiG0vm6xp8XnRfsUNfDVZ8IsmYky7kDLM= =5Aay -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----