On Aug 10, 2015 7:03 PM, "odinn via bitcoin-dev" <
[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to