Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TBAAM-0001KF-I1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:01:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TBAAI-00084w-GP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:01:06 +0000 Received: by iebc11 with SMTP id c11so4085100ieb.34 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.159.130 with SMTP id xc2mr13215678igb.33.1347307257268; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.56.66 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1347306813.1419.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <201209101859.05009.luke@dashjr.org> <239CFE18-302F-47F1-8686-67297FDDFB3C@godofgod.co.uk> <1347306813.1419.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:00:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1TBAAI-00084w-GP Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:01:06 -0000 On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > It seems to me the whole idea of segmenting blocks would add very little > (to nothing) with any sane block size. Sure, if a block were to be > 10GB, it may make sense. However, even in that case, it would be easier As you know there is a hard protocol limit of 1MB. If you're going to talk about doing that you are screwing with the core economic promises of the system. (in particular, removing the cap eliminates the only armwave we have for long term security). But in any case, removing it requires a complete and totally incompatible hardfork, and at that point you can do whatever you want with the protocol. Changing how blocks are fetched is almost incidental to the number of other things that would be changed. I don't think it makes sense to design for that especially when something far simpler (as you pointed out) is prudent for the design of bitcoin.