What do you think about KASPA?
#btc #bitcoin #kaspa #crypto #money #meme #bitcoinmeme
Discussion
Shittiest shitcoin. Because it claims to be better than the other shitcoins.
Iâve always liked kaspa.
because the tx throughput is so massive it's impossible for a node to validate the entire tx set and is therefore not trustless. The only way to run kaspa trustlessly is to have a massive stack of servers sitting in a low latency datacenter.
It's a shitcoin.
Many nodes do not run the entire chain on BTC. BTC has a storage problem. You must point to issues with both.
all nodes validate all blocks and all transactions. If you think they are the same as kaspa which is not trustless then you misunderstand how this technology works.
Pruning a bitcoin node is not the same as allowing other nodes to do your validation for you.
Pruning a BTC node can only happen after downloading the entire chain.
Yes because bitcoin nodes validate all tx and all blocks, unlikely Kaspa which is not trustless.
You can get a 1TB ssd drive for $60. This is after 15 years of activity, so obviously bitcoin does not have a storage problem.
Is it necessary that a node run the entire chain or is a partial node acceptable for some?
It depends on what you want the node to accomplish. There are different types of Bitcoin nodes, and not all need to download or store the entire blockchain:
Full Node: A full node must download the entire blockchain (currently about 570 GB) in order to validate all transactions and blocks. This ensures full independence and trustlessness, as the node validates all activity from the genesis block onward. Full nodes are considered necessary for those who want maximum security and trust in the network without relying on third parties.
Pruned Node: A pruned node also downloads the entire blockchain initially, but it does not store the full history permanently. It only keeps a set number of the most recent blocks (configurable, usually around 2-10 GB). This allows users to run a full-validating node with less storage but still participate fully in the Bitcoin network. Pruned nodes validate all transactions but don't retain the full history.
Lightweight (SPV) Nodes: These are "partial" nodes and do not download the full blockchain. Instead, they only download block headers (which are much smaller) and rely on full nodes for validation. SPV nodes offer a tradeoff between lower storage and less direct trust in the network but are acceptable for casual users who just want to send and receive transactions.
The main point being that you can run a full node with minimal hardware and capital investment. This is in contrast to Kaspa which requires millions of dollars of capital investment and colocation in a low latency data center to have any hope of running trustlessly.
And for trust, reliability, and use a partial node for most is sufficient, right?
no, a partial node is not sufficient for trustless use of the network.
Why?
Because a partial node can not validate all transactions and blocks, obviously. If you do not validate yourself, then you are trusting someone else to validate for you.
Don't trust, verify.
Yes, but not blocks of history, new blocks. Can they verify those?
A partial node can validate the block header but it cannot validate the transactions in the block.
And a pruned node?
yes a pruned node validates all blocks and all transactions. It is fully trustless. But because it is pruned it is not appropriate for something like a block explorer which may seek to view transactions and blocks that have been pruned.
But yes, pruned nodes are trustless.
I run a full node without pruning on a raspberry pi with a small SSD. If you believe bitcoin has a storage problem how do you expect anyone, outside a giant datacenter, to handle the kaspa chain with it's 10 bazillion tx per second?
The bottom line is that it's quite cheap and easy to run a bitcoin node that validates every single transaction in every single block. In contrast kaspa is impossible to validate unless you have millions of dollars of equipment running in a low latency data center.
They are not the same. Kaspa is not trustless, and as a result, it's a shitcoin.
Bitcoin does not have a storage problem. Kaspa has that, plus a validation problem.
Itâs time and energy in abstracted form. You canât love Bitcoin and hate Kaspa. They are cut from the same cloth. Fair launched, POW, layer 1. BTC has a block speed of 10 min and Kaspa 1 second.
#kaspa
1 second block is one of the problems, kaspa will die miserably
Why is a problem?
Blocks every second vs. every 10 minutes: a comparison. The former are faster but less secure and less decentralized. The latter guarantee more stability and security. Choosing the right pace is fundamental.
Yes, but BTCâs hashrate was once Kaspaâs, no? And it is no less decentralized. Kaspa is fair launched.
They can both live in harmony with each other, IMO. BTC being the reserve currency/major store of value and medium of exchange for very large purchases and Kaspa serving as the medium of exchange for everyday transactions.