MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55C8D960.607@riseup.net>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjwVxYTOn3+bwahHGSGpBh5BCh5b4OOFkw_2x97YZSFPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKS_wDDgf=HjPgD5QZ_wdTRg7i_oYUgBRmh9HpufETAP=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqvpWdHdjo1OBzbw-6ivu5DEGcfvK8duc3-KAjsSeWapA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C79FF0.8040100@thinlink.com>
	<CAOG=w-skYq84=PtN45FB-dGoY1783Jz7K1T16e2JVGjLazWuyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAO2FKHyNC6PT+i2pYo88eeb-wdkJdeVjmqzC=PetyF6yO=+Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8D960.607@riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:14:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgpMjcLvJ4FbK9A86V0RKMat5-Gp1UF62jOprTnX3Q3dQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Colin Gallagher <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f1430c90b051cf81e76
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What Lightning Is
Precedence: list

--001a113f8f1430c90b051cf81e76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Aug 10, 2015 7:03 PM, "odinn via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@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

--001a113f8f1430c90b051cf81e76
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Aug 10, 2015 7:03 PM, &quot;odinn via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
Note that I&#39;ve<br>
&gt; been in favor of going ahead with Cameron Garnham&#39;s dynamic softfork<br>
&gt; proposal right now, which can be seen at <a href="http://is.gd/DiFuRr">http://is.gd/DiFuRr</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Also, please keep this thread about Lightning.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>

--001a113f8f1430c90b051cf81e76--