{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2012-09-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Matt Corallo \u003cbitcoin-list at bluematt.me\u003e wrote:\n\u003e It seems to me the whole idea of segmenting blocks would add very little\n\u003e (to nothing) with any sane block size.  Sure, if a block were to be\n\u003e 10GB, it may make sense.  However, even in that case, it would be easier\n\nAs you know there is a hard protocol limit of 1MB.\n\nIf you're going to talk about doing that you are screwing with the\ncore economic promises of the system. (in particular, removing the cap\neliminates the only armwave we have for long term security).  But in\nany case, removing it requires a complete and totally incompatible\nhardfork, and at that point you can do whatever you want with the\nprotocol. Changing how blocks are fetched is almost incidental to the\nnumber of other things that would be changed.  I don't think it makes\nsense to design for that especially when something far simpler (as you\npointed out) is prudent for the design of bitcoin."}