Blockchain is 360GB and growing, can it be consolidated?

[franky1]

I honestly don't see any reason why anyone would store the whole blockchain for "accounting checks".

just one example:
keeping the taint of movements of a utxos previous transactions is important for KYC and AML stuff
some services still want to avoid accepting transactions that have silkroad taint.
(pre-empt rebuttal:
unless you want to be one of those selfish leachers that request getdata of a new tx received previous taint blocks and then all blocks previous to that to then refind the full taint)

Although definition of certain terms are sometimes flexible but "full node" definition was always about "full verification" not "full storage and full verification". So I don't agree with #2, you are still a full node if you aren't storing the whole blockchain.

FULL means everything. a full node should do everything. hense the word FULL. by personally not wanting one feature, and pretending its not important because you dont want it. does not then still make the word full, full.. when its not doing the full job.
i get it its ok you dont want to do a full job.. but its not just about archiving. its about being a peer to seed other peers for IBD. its about having the full data to even be able to offer random blocks which as you say 'all it takes is the 'getdata' message'
sorry but if the peers dont have all blocks then your pruned peer cant then 'getdata' from that other peer of  random block X months ago
also if you are offline for a week and all pruned nodes are set to 288 blocks you also cant just resync just the last bit of time you were offline because there is a gap of 5 days of that week between when you went off line until the latest 288 blocks
you also cant offer any of this to others. literally making you as good as a lite wallet for the peer network

bitnodes lists 14k nodes(at time of writing). but there are not 14k 'fullnodes' listed.
take just one thing. i just searched the nodes at current height and found only 3000 of them fully uptodate

That site lists listening nodes not all bitcoin nodes which is a lot more than 14k.
You don't have to listen for incoming connection to be a full node or verify blocks or provide the blocks you have to other peers, ...

theres another thing nodes not listening means they are not offering a full service to the peer network.
but with that said i never said the 14k nodes were all nodes. but just an example selection by which even that selection are not even full nodes

less than 3k of them are actually able to offer full node peer services. and be able to relay the latest block solved by a pool. all the others(11k) are missing blocks ~ or have the full blockchain for IBD

Being a full node is more than just providing historical blocks for IBD though.
A node should also enforce consensus rules, verify and relay new blocks, have an active mempool and verify relay transactions, relay other peers addresses, ...

yep being a full node is more then just one thing. correct and thank you for correcting yourself after your earlier defence that you think that being a full nude is only a selected features you thought were important to you. EG you thought a full node didnt need to archive, without realising the other features not available by not archiving. so im glad to see you might have seen the light whereby having all data and all verification done is actually important not just to you, but to the peer network

In short:  You can choose to keep or not keep the whole block chain. Either way, you have to verify every single transaction. If you don't (which would happen the way you describe), you create the problem the entire project relies on solving:

gosh darn it. i think even blackhatcoiner is starting to get it too. finally seeing the light of the problem
just one note. although it means you by not verifying everything put you at risk by not independently trusting the data. being able to get the data from other peers because they have the data to give is step one of that process. and the more important feature. after all you cant verify data if there are limited/no sources of said data to then independently verify

anyways
like i said if you want to prune. thats your choice, but dont be deceived into thinking your a full node on the peer network helping the network

oh, last note:

Why can someone not develop some side-chain that holds the "archived" Blockchain data that was archived and the rest of the people hold a pruned version of it for say the last 12 months?

And who would hold the “archived” block chain data? There's no point to have a side-chain in order for people to hold a pruned version of the chain. Just run a pruned node. That way, you can verify the validity of the chain without having to keep it.

sounds like what kakmakr is hinting is a scenario where altnet like LN is refered to as 'bitcoin' where the actual blockchain network is defined as the 'sidechain'. so im surprised Blackhatcoiner has not sided with kakmakr thinking its a good idea. nice to see blackhatcoiner seeing the faults in kakmakrs idea. and takes note of this moment to realise what it actually means

[BlackHatCoiner]

gosh darn it. i think even blackhatcoiner is starting to get it too.

Do I interpret an aggressive behavior?

although it means you by not verifying everything put you at risk by not independently trusting the data. being able to get the data from other peers because they have the data to give is step one of that process. and the more important feature. after all you cant verify data if there are limited/no sources of said data to then independently verify

The underline parts don't make sense. If you really want to help a reader learn, you're failing miserably.

like i said if you want to prune. thats your choice, but dont be deceived into thinking your a full node on the peer network helping the network

Full nodes help the network. Did you possibly mean pruned node? Your text is hard to read.

[franky1]

gosh darn it. i think even blackhatcoiner is starting to get it too.

Do I interpret an aggressive behavior?

ignoring your poke, very obvious

although it means you by not verifying everything put you at risk by not independently trusting the data. being able to get the data from other peers because they have the data to give is step one of that process. and the more important feature. after all you cant verify data if there are limited/no sources of said data to then independently verify

The underline parts don't make sense. If you really want to help a reader learn, you're failing miserably.

dont start poking the bear with grammar debates as that just lessens your stance and makes you look like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel of argument just to poke the bear.

if you dont understand that to get data, other people need to have the data to give. so the first important step is that people have the data.
so again "being able to get the data from other peers because they have the data to give is step one of that process"

like i said if you want to prune. thats your choice, but dont be deceived into thinking your a full node on the peer network helping the network

Full nodes help the network. Did you possibly mean pruned node? Your text is hard to read.

yes pruned nodes as highlighted deceived into thinking they are full nodes, need to stop being deceived that they are full nodes helping the network..

now stop trying to make grammar/personal arguments for sole purpose causing drama.
your not the first that tried. and yes although i do usually bite. your not worth it.

..
point is archiving is important to being a full node for many reasons
archiving helps other peers:
Initial block download(IBD)
random block retrieval 'getdata'
resync more then just latest couple days
prevent easy chain re-orgs

it also helps yourself by:
being able to offer all of the above plus:
being able to follow taint of new transactions back to their original coin reward creation
any virus targetting utxoset doesnt require re-IBDing
plus more

addressing post below
when my post clearly addresses the pruners, by beginning the sentence 'if you want to prune thats your choice' then there is no argument about if i am addressing pruners in that sentence.

if i say that those needing data first, have to get data and that data can only be obtained if other users have the data. then clearly having the data is a important first step.

if however you ignore the context of whats been said and just want to knitpick HOW it was said. then you have missed the points entirely and just want to convert this topic into some social drama pretending your the victim and im the instigator. maybe next time concentrate on the context of WHAT is being said. not HOW.
this is not the first time grammar pokers try to get bit then cry victim. even when the original quotes they pretend not to understand did actually make sense. especially when they are willing to spend hours social drama arguing grammar but not spending 20 seconds just reading the context.

[n0nce]

dont start poking the bear with grammar debates as that just lessens your stance and makes you look like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel of argument just to poke the bear.

My 2 sats: it's not about poking; it's just extremely hard to read your posts. Sorry, but they're so bad that I would need to put in an unreasonable amount of time and energy to try decrypting them; thus skipping your posts entirely.

[BlackHatCoiner]

dont start poking the bear with grammar debates as that just lessens your stance

As n0nce pointed out, it's not about poking. I barely understand what you write and you should consider it justified if one does not understand a part of your text. Besides simple grammar mistakes such as improper usage of punctuation etc., some of your sentences don't even make any sense at all.

It seems like you're writing your posts in a rush while you want to shut me up.

And again, I don't understand what you're trying to mean in here:

if you dont understand that to get data, other people need to have the data to give. so the first important step is that people have the data.
so again "being able to get the data from other peers because they have the data to give is step one of that process"

If I don't understand that to get data, other people need to have the data to give what? Then you conclude that others need to have that “data”. Should I assume the data is the block chain? Then, of which process is this the step one?

[franky1]

yes blockchain data.
this is not some science website that is asking for a thesis on particle manipulation related to the suns radiation.
of course when discussing bitcoin nodes/peers and the data they receive relating to the blockchain, that data means blockchain data(whole or part is no specific).

this whole topic is about blockchain data.
it does not mean data involving the spectral range of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. or any other data imaginable. it means on this website about bitcoin. in this category of technical discussion about bitcoin. in this topic of bitcoins blockchain.. yes data=blockchain data
1+1+1=3

now stop the social drama tactics.

if you are trying to play chicken(2) and egg(1)
the answer is egg.
step 0 duck+turkey create an egg(1) egg hatches and its a chicken(2) chicken lays an egg(1) another chicken comes out.. and so on. .. egg then chicken(rinse and repeat)

so to get data(2) someone needs to have data(1)... 1 comes before 2
pools create the data(1) peers get data(2) peer stores data(1) other peers get data(2)

if your pretending to be an egg farm but none of your chickens can produce eggs to feed customers. your not an egg farm.
just because you received an egg and verified for your own purposes that it is indeed a chicken by letting it hatch in your farm. but then not allowing that chicken to then produce eggs for others. does not make you a full egg farm

[pooya87]

keeping the taint of movements of a utxos previous transactions is important for KYC and AML stuff
some services still want to avoid accepting transactions that have silkroad taint.

Wrong example because just having historical blocks isn't going to tell them the "taint" they also have to have implemented a taint analysis code which is not something merchants ever do. Instead they simply use a centralized third party.

yep being a full node is more then just one thing. correct and thank you for correcting yourself after your earlier defence that you think that being a full nude is only a selected features you thought were important to you.

I never said "only a selected feature" I said "full verification" makes a node full node not "full storage" and my reply here doesn't contradict that.

Your confusion and defensive behavior seems to be because you think I disagree with "pruned nodes contribute less to the network", but I'm not. I'm saying that you can't say they are not full nodes just because they don't store historical blocks.

Most important thing about pruned nodes is that (using the numbers you posted earlier) it is so much better to have a total of 14k nodes (3000 full archival nodes and 11k full pruned nodes) than to have 3000 full nodes in total and nothing else contributing to network.

[franky1]

(my last post on this discussion of less or full, as its a shame that i even have to debate such a basic concept to people that rebutt that basics dont need to be mentioned because it should be assumed they know)

to pooya:

you are right merchants need extra code to sieve through the block data to show the taint path. but its impossible to use their extra code to read the blocks to get the taint path of new incoming transactions unless... wait for it. they have the blocks of previous transactions to check the path.
you will be surprised that any decent merchant that cares enough about taint and customer transactions will actually want to be a full node. and have extra code ontop to do more beautiful things with the block data for their own independent purposes.(emphasis fully independent)

much like any decent business will have its own spreadsheet software and tax accountant software, instead of relying on 3rd party accountants

so try not to assume that all merchants are lite wallets and use third parties

after all the whole trust a third party thing you assume all merchants do, is not what bitcoin is about.
and its a shame that you think that users should trust third parties and use them because a decision to prune means they have to use third parties.
i think you shot yourself in the foot by admitting that those that do prune should and do trust third parties. it kinda rips apart your whole argument about 'full' if you are saying pruned nodes then use third parties for things a real full node can offer within the merchants own system..
.. doesnt really sound much of a rebuttal for your version of 'full' if you admit that they need to use third parties.
...
you did indirectly say selected features. because by your own admission you are not archiving so you have selectively chosen that certain features and services and options of a node are not to be used, hense no longer full
if i was to number all the features and the total was say 1037. defining FULL node. and your node wasnt offering all of them. even say 1036. then thats not full. thats 'less than'

by your own admission you say:
"you think I disagree with "pruned nodes contribute less to the network", but I'm not"
but then you pretend pruned nodes dont offer less because you believe pruned nodes are full.
less is not full.. less is less

if you went to a bar fo a pint of beer. there are 14 barman. the first you approach poured a pint. and then spilled 95% of it, but still gave you the glass of the remaining 5% froth. he can prove he poured a full pint into the glass. but is only offering you the 5% froth. would you accept that the glass is still a full pint. would you accept the barman offered you a full pint service.

in reality, you should think that the barman is useless if everytime you ask for a pint you only get 5% froth and go find another barman that can offer a full pint service. a fully trained barman that does contribute to the bar
in reality, you might even complain to someone that the barman is not contributing to the bars success.
in reality, you would NOT go on some site and leave a 5star review for the useless barman saying he is a fully skilled barman.
what if out of the other 13 barman you had the same problem with 10more barman not being fully trained..
and its impossible to get served by the 3 fully trained barmen because they are super busy serving regulars that came before you that know which barmen are fully trained. and also the queue of customers that got a bad service and are now queuing up with what little talent remains in the bar. making your experience miserable and slow, making you not want to have a pint altogether and making you not even want to be a fully trained barman in a future career as you see the pressure the 3 fully trained guys are under

as for your last statement that you think the scenario should be 'better to have 3k full 11k pruned rather than just 3k full'
actually no. because in the 3k full 11k pruned. those 3k are under more intense data pressure contributing to leachers. meaning the other peers within the 3k full nodes are getting slower speeds amongst themselves
and those leachers are not then contributing to help new full nodes get their IBD either.
the real scenario is to grow the full node population.


because yet again it needs to be mentioned. by trying to deceive people that being a prune is the same network contribution as being full, can and has made some full noders downgrade. thus instead of having 10k full nodes. its now ~3k.. because. wait for it.. people(like yourself) think that there is no harm and no loss of contribution to the network by being a pruner

sorry to inform you again. pruned nodes dont fully contribute to the network, they actually put more pressure on the ones that do.

so lets just stop the flip floppy changing the answer just to have a reason to debate.
make the decision
a. pruners dont help contribute towards the network and being pruned lessens what you can do/offer
b. remain in the disbelief that being pruned is full ability and full service offering to the peer network

i dont need the answer. the answer is for you to settle your own mind with.
less is not full

anyways, enjoy your 5% froth. just dont tell people your drinking a full pint. your a lightweight, cheap date

[BlackHatCoiner]

It's really a challenge to have a conversation with you, franky. I confess.

and its a shame that you think that users should trust third parties and use them because a decision to prune means they have to use third parties.

Running a pruned node means you don't have to trust anyone! As I said, whether you run a node who does keep the chain or not, you validate every single transaction you receive from your peers. The system works trustless-ly. What is this you dislike pruned nodes so much?

I said "full verification" makes a node full node not "full storage" and my reply here doesn't contradict that.

Huh? Don't pruned and full nodes differentiate only in the size of the storage they require? They both make a full verification.

[franky1]

verification of transactions is only one part of what a node does.
just because its the one part you only care about or the only part you want. does not mean its the only thing a node does
a full node does many many many other things.
and needs to perform and offer ALL those MANY things to be classed as full.

assuming a node just has to verify to be "full" is not full

if you think that being "full" is only about verification. then you need to redefined your assumption of what being a full node actually involves.

the real challenge seems you be certain peoples grasp of the concept of full, as oppose to 'less than, but pretends to be full'.

getting back to a technical discussion of this topic after the myriad of social drama discussion about less=full.

having the full blockchain means you can contribute to the network to offer(along with other things) not just Initial block download to peers, not just 'getdata' of random blocks, not just ability to sync up more than the last 2 days.
also theres are things like having the blockdata distributed so there are many copies in many countries to avoid any country 'pulling the plug'. having the data distributed to allow more choice of peer connections. having the data distributed so peers dont rely on a small cluster of attackable nodes

if the whole network (as the topic creators thoughts mention) only had the last month of transactions and a (UTXOSET) list of unspent transactions. where there was no taint or proof of that values initial creation from its original coin reward. then that puts the network at risk of UTXO virus attacks to rewrite sets. it puts the whole true accountability of all true coin at risk. along with other problems.

there is a reason that blockchains have become a success compared to spreadsheet accounting of 'live balance'. no one can just slip in a transaction with an old date and pretend its valid simply because they managed to send everyone their edited utxoset

its ok you you personally want to prune for any personal reason. just dont then pretend to be a full contributor to the network and dont tell others they are fully contributing when you talk them into pruning. just be honest and tell them you and them will be offering less then full network contribution and less than fulll features for you and them you take advantage of

[pooya87]

so try not to assume that all merchants are lite wallets and use third parties

I made no such assumption. Many merchants run their own nodes (full or pruned) and many go through third parties but almost all those who need some sort of "taint analysis" rely on a third party (like chainanalysis) because this is despite their own preference like an exchange that is forced by the regulators to implement such nonsense.
Implementing such a system themselves is a burden and would cost more than using the third party not to mention that the responsibility would be with that third party not the user which is favorible.

after all the whole trust a third party thing you assume all merchants do, is not what bitcoin is about.

That's about receiving bitcoin through third parties not some regulation about KYC/AML needing chain analysis!

and its a shame that you think that users should trust third parties and use them because a decision to prune means they have to use third parties.

I made no such claims.
Again you claimed that merchants need to run archival nodes for accounting, AML and KYC and I said for those things that already have centralization involved they use third parties.

by your own admission you say:
"you think I disagree with "pruned nodes contribute less to the network", but I'm not"
but then you pretend pruned nodes dont offer less because you believe pruned nodes are full.
less is not full.. less is less

You are very confused about all concepts. A full node has a simple definition, a client that verifies everything. That's all. It doesn't have to do anything else. It can discard the entire blockchain, it can refuse to relay blocks or transactions, it can refuse to provide any services including replying to getheaders message which every client including SPVs could reply to but none of that changes the fact that it is a full node, it just means this particular client is not contributing to the network.

by trying to deceive people that being a prune is the same network contribution as being full,

I made no such claims. I clearly stated (and you quoted it) that pruned nodes contribute less to the network but they still contribute. You seem to be having a hard time keeping your thoughts in one place!

I said "full verification" makes a node full node not "full storage" and my reply here doesn't contradict that.

Huh? Don't pruned and full nodes differentiate only in the size of the storage they require? They both make a full verification.

That's exactly my argument. When your client downloads and verifies everything from block 0 that makes it a full verifying node. Whether your client discards the blockchain later (and stores less blocks) doesn't change that.

[PrimeNumber7]

my premiss is this
if you just want to validate your own transactions and you dont care about being part of the full node network of peers for the benefit of the bitcoin network universe. then fine you prune or use a lite wallet, whatever you choose. just know and understand that your not part of the full node network.

understand that by you saving your bandwidth/hard drive by not being a seeder means your not helping the real seeders.. and acept that your ok with that 'less than' status, because it fits your lifestyle

but if you want to be a full node then be a full node.
none of this wishy washy 'everyones a full node' pish posh

I guess you can call a pruned node whatever you want. However, a pruned node provides all the same security that a full node provides, and that is what is important to the end-user. The same is true if a non-pruned node disregards signature data after it has validated the signature of a transaction.

the network needs to have a strong amount of actual fullnodes
not a 3:11 ratio of full:lesthan group thinking they are all offering a full decentralised service for the network
without even knowing that there is a difference

Unfortunately, we don't live in a utopia, and users will prioritize their limited resources to things that are important to them. If someone does not have the resources to store all blocks, or to send all block/transaction data to the internet 8+ times, they should not be forced into doing so.

Even if a centralized service were to "sell" the ability to download the entire blockchain for new nodes, a node would be able to validate the entire blockchain, and know if they are receiving the correct version of the blockchain because they would be validating all blocks, including the POW, and would be able to validate the POW of new blocks they receive from other nodes. It is not possible to fake POW of old blocks.

fullnodes have the entire blockchain all the way upto the latest block. where all blockdata is included and all transactions within are validated. that way chain re-orgs cant happen easily/at all

A pruned node keeping 5 GB of the most recent block data would be storing a minimum of 1,250 blocks if they kept the block and signature data. This works out to approximately 8.5 days worth of blocks with no difficulty growth. A reorg anywhere near that size (even 1% of that size) would signal very serious problems, that far outweigh any potential issue about not having enough nodes.

[franky1]

seems pooya is stuck on the 'only verification'=full features..

That's exactly my argument. When your client downloads and verifies everything from block 0 that makes it a full verifying node. Whether your client discards the blockchain later (and stores less blocks) doesn't change that.

actually although you think you have a full verified UTXO set of all unspents from block 0 to say block 712k.. can you verify that today? right now! without requesting a new IBD to compare it to???
(answer is no)

heres the thing. you might have been online for 12 years and stayed synced and decided to prune say 6 months ago. you might have just come online 6 months ago and IBD and then pruned that month.
but here is the question for you.
what if your computer glitched 4 months ago or a hacker got in and added his own false utxo to your utxo set.

can you now with just your UTXO set verify today that no one slipped in a utxo into your set.
no. you cant
can you prove that a tx in your utxo set is today valid, when some chain re-org happens.. no you cant

your UTXO set is only as good as the minute you verify it. anything after that, the utxo set by itself cant be fully trusted. loss of data, virus, hacks. and boom your utxoset is compromised

yet having the blockdata to support it allows you to seek the utxo from the set(like reading an index of a book). and then compare it to the blockchain.
a utxo set is only useful to save having to find the tx via reading all blocks every time a transaction appears.

its just like an index of a book to save you having to read the whole book every time just to find a reference.
a utxo set is not good for verified accounting. its not good for security. its not good for proving the transaction has a real utxo.. because your utxo set can be compromised at any time and there is no way you can tell

again there is a reason why blockchains become popular compared to spreadsheet balance accounting

[PrimeNumber7]

heres the thing. you might have been online for 12 years and stayed synced and decided to prune say 6 months ago. you might have just come online 6 months ago and IBD and then pruned that month.
but here is the question for you.
what if your computer glitched 4 months ago or a hacker got in and added his own false utxo to your utxo set.

can you now with just your UTXO set verify today that no one slipped in a utxo into your set.
no. you cant

If someone is able to maliciously add a UTXO that is not in the UTXO set, they have potentially (and likely) added malware to your computer. You would not be able to trust any output your computer provides. If your computer is infected with malware, validating the entire blockchain (again) is not going to show you that you have received a valid transaction.

[franky1]

If someone does not have the resources to store all blocks, or to send all block/transaction data to the internet 8+ times, they should not be forced into doing so.

its not about being forced to.

lets use a mcdonald employee analogy. maybe something more understandable for some
its about not pretending you deserve a 5star gold badge, when you only offer a 1 star service. its about being honest with yourself and others that if you choose to only offer a 1 star service, accept that fact that you are a 1 star service member. be ok that you are a one star member. and stop trying to pretend your 5star contributor.

it doesnt matter if you make 1000 more posts saying the 1star training is all that is needed to be 5star.. reality is there are more things then the 1 star offering involved to be given the 5star badge.
yes 5star contributors also do 1star tasks... along with many other tasks. but that does not make a 1 star member a 5 star member just because "but 5star guys does my job too'. the 1star member still needs to do more then a 1 star task to be promoted. ignoring all the other jobs a 5star member does, pretending they are insignificant. does not earn you a promotion
just because your a burger flipper and then you see the manager also flips burgers. does not then mean you get to call yourself a manager because you both flip burgers. the manager does other tasks too. which is why he is the manager


its about stop deceiving others that your a full service 5 star contributor. its about realising what you are not contributing to, and thus accepting that lesser position and the hazards to you and others  for not being able to do it all.

its simply that you can be a pruner. but call yourself a pruner not a 'full node'.
and no, dont demote a full node description to being 'just verification'. because a full node is not just about verification. there is alot more too it. and if you are still unsure of all the features.. learn

there are many many many things that involve being a full node. not just that at some point in time you verified something.. because months later that set cant be trusted
it has no UTXOset hash to compare to other peers UTXOset to verify the set has not been edited

nodes with nothing more then the lastest 288 blocks and a utxo set cannot in their true heart be 100% sure that their utxo set will never be compromised. they cannot also truly know for sure if it ever was. nor can they help other nodes.
maybe people need to revise and study and research what blockchains offer that spreadsheet accounting doesnt

its not about forcing people to be full nodes. its about getting pruners to accept their limited ability due to their own choice to limit what they do.

sorry but pruners do not get a 5star gold badge. they have not earned the promotion.

again to try bringing the discussion back on topic to the topic creators question
having a whole network of nodes with just 288 latest blocks and then a dataset of unspent values. puts the network at big risk. blockchains were invented for a good reason, doing something that spreadsheet balance accounting cant
it doesnt matter if at some point in the past you checked the balances were real. once verified if you are only storing a balance sheet of what you believe is still unspent. that sheet can become compromised and you have nothing on your system to check it against.
a dataset of unspents should never be used as "same security as blockchains" because it lacks the evidence of origins to ensure no compromise happened. a dataset of unspents should only be used as a quick index to find the real unspent on the actual blockchain. to then double verify the unspent is real when new transactions appear.

[tromp]

seems pooya is stuck on the 'only verification'=full features..

Yes, pooya, along with most others in this discussion, as well as the vast majority of bitcoin experts,
is stuck on the notion that full node is short for fully verifying node.

You are one of a small minority of people that have miraculously overlooked this established terminology.

[BlackHatCoiner]

actually although you think you have a full verified UTXO set of all unspents from block 0 to say block 712k.. can you verify that today? right now! without requesting a new IBD to compare it to???

Why should you verify an already-verified set of outputs?

what if your computer glitched 4 months ago or a hacker got in and added his own false utxo to your utxo set.

That has nothing to do with pruning. Alright, let's take it in another way:  What if a hacker replaced your UTXO with his UTXO while you're running a full node? Once you had verified the outputs you'd have no way of knowing if your verified outputs changed.

The only difference is that full node does the IBD once.

[franky1]

seems pooya is stuck on the 'only verification'=full features..

Yes, pooya, along with most others in this discussion, as well as the vast majority of bitcoin experts,
is stuck on the notion that full node is short for fully verifying node.

You are one of a small minority of people that have miraculously overlooked this established terminology.

ok there we have it.
it looks like tromp took a secret vote and elected bitcoin full nodes EG 'core' as just a litewallet, thats job is nothing to do with decentralising the network by offering IBD, getdata to peers.
(facepalm)

[sarcasm]
guess thats case closed then..
core devs dont need to code any parts of core relating to archiving the blockchain or providing peers with blocks older than the latest 288blocks

guess tromps community decided. bitcoin does not rely on blockchains. death to the un-needed blockchain i guess.. tromp has decided that blockchains are not important.

praise be tromp, the election committee director, the master of what core is responsible for, praise be
[/sarcasm]

ill leave tromp with one question.
if full means only certain features. then what terminology is there for a node that offers not just verification, but the full bitcoin offering of features such as verification AND archiving AND full peers services....

here is the funny thing. 'full node' was a term that existed before pruning existed. so pretending that pruning is full, is a false idea and a rewrite of history

lets await tromp to take another secret poll and come up with a new terminology
(isnt it weird that in my first post on this topic i said that too many people like to argue buzzwords, rewriting reality and thus making the buzzwords meaningless in their definition)

what if your computer glitched 4 months ago or a hacker got in and added his own false utxo to your utxo set.

That has nothing to do with pruning. Alright, let's take it in another way:  What if a hacker replaced your UTXO with his UTXO while you're running a full node? Once you had verified the outputs you'd have no way of knowing if your verified outputs changed.

if you have the blockchain. (important) you can check utxo to find its block, then its blockhash, and compare against the block contents. find the transaction in question, see it exists. then check the entire chain of blockhashes match up to what they suppose to be, and yep. you can see if there were edits or not.
EG edit one transaction from 2010 edits that blocks hash and all blockhashes there after meaning the latest blocks hash wont be the same as your edited latest blocks hash

you cant do all this if you prune, unless you continually prompt a third party to re-send you all the data again
(isnt it weird that one of the first rebuttals to me was that certain things didnt need explaining because it was assumed they knew the basics already.. guess not)

anyways, seems this topic is going no where fast where buzzwords dont mean what they intend because half a job is a full job, as voted.  and blockchains are not important and not part of the protocol that fullnodes are involved in. as voted by the established community (facepalm)

bored now. moving on

[zbig001]

Paradoxically, pruning and validating only the current blocks may be sufficient for security, but only if it doesn't become too common.

It is better not to provoke the evolution of the protocol towards increasing scalability, which would not only threaten decentralization, but also security.
There can always be a bug that validators cannot detect and that will not be disclosed until a full chain audit by inquisitive, independent researchers.
As was the case with the Stellar coin once
https://coinmetrics.substack.com/p/coin-metrics-state-of-the-network-37f

[n0nce]

seems pooya is stuck on the 'only verification'=full features..

Here's the thing. In Bitcoin wiki and pretty much anywhere else, full node is used interchangeably with or even defined as fully verifying node.
You're actually stuck on believing 'full' means 'full features'; but that's not the definition. 'Full' in this context is more a short-form for 'fully verifying' instead of meaning 'all features'. By your definition, I could say, if you don't run Electrum and Lightning on your node and don't have a giant txindex, you're not providing 'full functionality' to the network. So as you see, such a definition would be very vague: what is everything? This is not clear-cut. But anyway: full = fully verifying. It's defined like that, after all.

Nodes that fully verify all of the rules of Bitcoin are called full nodes.

For the record, I run multiple non-pruned full nodes with Electrum and Lightning, so you're not gonna tell me to 'be happy with your mangled non-full node', please

what if your computer glitched 4 months ago or a hacker got in and added his own false utxo to your utxo set.

That has nothing to do with pruning. Alright, let's take it in another way:  What if a hacker replaced your UTXO with his UTXO while you're running a full node? Once you had verified the outputs you'd have no way of knowing if your verified outputs changed.

Didn't you know franky reindexes his blockchain folder every day? No really, it makes no sense. Verified once, it's verified, that's it LOL; similar as if someone hashed the same thing 1000x and expected the result to change after some while.

if you have the blockchain. (important) you can check utxo to find its block, then its blockhash, and compare against the block contents. find the transaction in question, see it exists. then check the entire chain of blockhashes match up to what they suppose to be, and yep. you can see if there were edits or not.
EG edit one transaction from 2010 edits that blocks hash and all blockhashes there after meaning the latest blocks hash wont be the same as your edited latest blocks hash

you cant do all this if you prune, unless you continually prompt a third party to re-send you all the data again
(isnt it weird that one of the first rebuttals to me was that certain things didnt need explaining because it was assumed they knew the basics already.. guess not)

Replying to the underlined: actually this is exactly what you do during the IBD of a full node (pruned or not - no difference). You fully verify every single utxo from the beginning to the current state. After it's verified by you, you're good. There is no benefit in repeating it later on. That's why the old blocks can be discarded after verification. Of course, the big downside of not archiving all blocks is you can't seed to new nodes. But the direct benefit (security, privacy, ...) to you as a user is exactly the same if you prune or not.