He suggests using a partitioned system where there are 10 1 MB chains below the main chain. This would allow for larger transactions to be put through the top chain, while middle and small-sized transactions would be verified by one of the middle or bottom chains respectively. The system would also enable people to store lifetime transactions on a 5 TB drive, which is accessible to regular users. The author suggests that Bitcoin Core only looks at the current blocks rather than old transactions, which could mean that a machine may have been compromised when validating previous blocks. To address this issue, the author proposes that people should be able to validate all blocks (since 100 years) rather than just a pruned part. This would empower people to have as much information about Bitcoin transactions as do large data centers; transactions that may include government or corporate corruption. In terms of implementation, the author proposes keeping the current chain as the top chain, and then creating 10 level 2 chains that also store Bitcoin. How can we incentivize people to keep mining on the level 1 chain? Perhaps force it into the (soft fork) protocol that anyone mining on level 2, has to also mine on level 1, and in general, anyone mining on level n+1 has to also mine on levels n,n-1,...,1. Even if people stop using level 1, any bitcoin you own in the level 1 chain, can be transferred to level 2, and still you have 1 MB blocks due to the partitioning scheme. The author acknowledges that he only has a high-level understanding of the Bitcoin protocol, but believes that his proposal would work and would only require a soft fork.