But if I prune my node it won’t serve IBD to the network.
Discussion
not all nodes need to be full archival nodes. that would be bad for decentralization.
even with full archival nodes, if you don’t have txindex on you won’t be able to easily extract the op_return from a txid.
I'm something of an archivist myself.
One of the things keeping node runners interested and leveling up their skills is running services adjacent to the node, like block explorers and lightning. Without indexing, pretty much anything interesting you want to do with a node is off the table.
You’re right. Just all mine need to be full nodes. lol
It might raise the hardware barrier,
but you still have to use IBD and prune after the download finish’s anyway, it’s the same requirement up front.
Less IBD nodes increases centralization and relies on more trust. Saying “we’re making this change, you can just prune” is the worst for decentralization of the nodes.
It’s not theoretical. We’ve already seen it! Wallets default to public Electrum servers. People syncing through Blockstream.info. Light clients like wallet-as-a-service models. Some of these users don’t even know that they’re using a trusted service.
These are fine options but become points of failure when only option for a node is “just prune it dude”
More full nodes is now "bad for decentralization" ...?
of course it is, not everyone can run a full archival node. Making it easier for more people to run nodes -> more decentralized. Pruned nodes (aka Full nodes) are still fully validating, they just don’t store all the blocks.
it doesn’t lower the requirements, you still have to download and validate every block before you delete.
of course it does, it reduces the storage requirement, the most important requirement. Not everyone has terabytes of storage to spare on their device.
it doesnt though, you still have to download the whole thing before you can prune. You still need terabytes of storage to start a bitcoin node. Once its download the requirements change. But to join the network, its the same hardware requiremnent for IBD w/ Prune or IBD w/o prune
this is false. you do not need terabytes of storage on a pruned node. you need the same amount of network *bandwidth*, sure, but pruned nodes prune as they are downloading. They only keep as much as they need to rollback incase of a reorg.
nostr:nprofile1qqsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3gpr9mhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5q3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd3skueqzcg6ta is correct. Pruned nodes can work with all kinds of sub-1TB disk sizes.
We even sell refurbished pruned nodes that have only a 256 GB SSD that work quite well.
Storage is not the most important requirement, bandwidth has always been the primary concern. Real decentralization depends on the number of full nodes. If we are not lowering the barrier to full node operation then we are not improving decentralization.
Hmm I'm not sure I agree here. Yes in places with shitty Internet bandwidth is more of a concern, but I the barrier to entry(device cost) doesn't increase with bandwidth, but it does with storage.
I also don't think most people are turned away by either of these constraints. I think most people don't care or transact enough to bother running a node.
storage has always been the main concern, jeff is just completely wrong here. you have to download the whole chain regardless of pruned or unpruned.
🤡
Man.. you've lost the plot, honestly.
Alright, Will, I'll definitely respect your argumentation. Keep going at it for sure. Its the way things should be. My only wish/advice is, you also take an honest look at the reaction from node runners and take that into account as you support a change on core.
If you ask me, looking at the reaction from an HONEST point of view, it tells me a substantial amount noderunners disagree with whatever logic you and core devs are presenting.
And despite whatever you might think, "a substantial amount of noderunners" disagreeing on a changr should raise serious concerns about that change.
how have i lost the plot exactly. Most people disagreeing with me don’t seem to understand the technical nuance of the spam issues at play.
I believe utxospam is much worse than op_return spam, so i am acting accordingly.
If “pleb” noderunners disagree then so be it. They can continue living in an alternate reality that doesn’t affect me.
The "lost the plot" part was directed at the note I replied to. Obviously all nodes being full nodes is not bad for decentralization.
I think/hope your rationale is -- if all nodes HAVE to be full nodes --> there would be fewer full nodes --> which would be bad for decentralisation.
But your phrasing is easily misinterpreted to something that sounds like people should prefer to run pruned nodes. Thats the way I read it the first time.
My point with respecting the signal from a substantial amount of noderunners is, since the problem the proposed change seeks to fix and the response is as controversial as it is, no change should be implemented. A better fix should be given time to be thought of.
pruned nodes are full nodes
You get to decide your own semantics, but for yourself only.
I'd argue its silly to think pruned node = full node and full node != full archival node. Why have a mode called pruned then!
Obviously full node = full archival node and PRUNED NODE IS PRUNED and cannot serve IBD.
full means fully validating. Its not “me deciding my own semantics “. Its literally what it means
Utxo spam which is cheaper to produce will not go away because you invited op return spam, you will get more of both.
Like Kaspa?
several related applications (etectrum, lnd, etc) require non-pruned node.
If your node is pruned you need to trust on a third-party non-pruned node or service ! do you think this is good for decentralization ?
i think more people running nodes is a good thing. once they are comfortable running a pruned node they can choose to upgrade to a more fancy setup like archival nodes and lightning nodes + block explorers.
of course more nodes are always better, but with terabyte ssd getting cheaper and cheaper, running a pruned node isn’t worth it given the current size of bitcoin’s full blockchain. Don't you think so ?
Another thing is if the blockchain size explodes due to some kind of "vitalikization".