rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:On Aug 10, 2015 7:03 PM, "odinn via bitcoin-dev" < 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. Also, please keep this thread about Lightning. -- Pieter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/7032bed6/attachment.html>