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