A partial node can validate the block header but it cannot validate the transactions in the block.

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.

no, a partial node is not sufficient for trustless use of the network.

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.

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.

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.

You COULD buy an airplane with a banana, if you could find consensus with someone willing to part ways with an airplane for a banana. Nothing precludes that tx and you repeating time and energy is irrelevant.

Every transaction involves consensus.

This is what you don’t seem to get.

Spin up your retard client and you’ll get a real world demonstration - no other clients are going to implement Kaspa wallets so you’re not going to be able to use your shitcoin because no-one will be willing nor able to receive it.

You’re going to get a very practical lesson in the economics of shitcoining.

Money is most definitely a social consensus. It is the very lubricant of a society. It’s what we use so we don’t bash and steal and simply let the strongest dominate.

Go try buy an airplane with bananas and you’ll find there are ZERO takers in the world. You won’t be able to form consensus with a single person to participate in your transaction.

You’ll find exactly the same when you release your Kaspa client and absolutely no-one wants your shitcoin and the social consensus of what money is on Nostr remains Bitcoin.

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.

Money is much more than that, including a network and a social consensus to name but a few.

Good luck trying to Kaspa-pill the world with its Zionist founders. I’m sure all the Muslim Bitcoiners who care about Halal money will be right behind you joining the dozen spuds on your retard client..

Money is much more than that, including a network and a social consensus to name but a few.

Good luck trying to Kaspa-pill the world with its Zionist founders. I’m sure all the Muslim Bitcoiners who care about Halal money will be right behind you joining the dozen spuds on your retard client..

What money represents, is not what money is.

Go spin up your retard client and find out for yourself.

1 second block is one of the problems, kaspa will die miserably

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.

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.

What’s the first word that comes to mind when you see this?

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.

What do you think about KASPA?

#btc #bitcoin #kaspa #crypto #money #meme #bitcoinmeme