rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29 📝 Original message:> > If the plan is a fix once and for all, then that should be changed too. > It could be set so that it is at least some multiple of the max block size > allowed. > Well, but RAM is not infinite :-) Effectively what these caps are doing is setting the minimum hardware requirements for running a Bitcoin node. That's OK by me - I don't think we are actually going to exhaust the hardware abilities of any reasonable computer any time soon, but still, having the software recognise the finite nature of a computing machine doesn't seem unwise. > That system can send a block of any size. It would require a change to > the processing of any merkleblocks received. > Not "any" size because, again, the remote node must buffer things up and have the transaction data actually in memory in order to digest it. But a much larger size, yes. However, that's a bigger change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/6aebe66a/attachment.html>