Have y ' all seen Seismic Toss ? The target Pokmon goes up into freaking SPACE before crashing back down . It ' s sick af . <| sep |> its G house <| sep |> That may have been the main cause of my mac partitions dying out of the blue . I ' ll report back with in update in time , my desktop has Mac running now and I should probably not install Paragon HFS if it doesn ' t have it installed . Thanks for the heads up though , really appreciate it ! <| sep |> To be continued ? What kind of bullshit is that ? <| sep |> A BU node will enforce its block size limit just like a Core node would . usually . But if the network as a whole decides to accept larger blocks , thenafter a period of time specified by the userthe BU node would permit larger blocks too in order to avoid losing sync with the network . The difference between a BU node and a Core node is that a Core node would be forked from the network until the user manually intervenes and downloadsrecompiles his node software to accept larger blocks . Whether you ' re running a BU or a Core node , it is a fact of Nakamoto consensus that to remain part of the Bitcoin network in a scenario where the network as a whole accepts larger blocks , your node would also have to accept larger blocks . So yes there is an in between if you want to remain part of the network . how do you know that a blocksize limit is not part of bitcoins monetary properties ? From my article Core ' s block size rule is not like the other two rules we considered i . e . , those requiring that all transactions in a block must be valid and not already spent . Instead of enforcing Bitcoin ' s money property , this additional rule is a hack that addresses a temporary technological limitation of the physical Bitcoin network . Indeed , a technical constraint related to transporting blocks around the network has crept into Core ' s consensus layer .