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

[franky1]

i understand that certain self-assumed 'community' electorates who feel empowered that they are the voice of all, think that full node is an invented term after pruning became a thing and refers to nodes that only verify.. just to ego boost that their less than offering is still felt as full offering. although they lack responding by mentioning the term of what a node is called that does do all the jobs(true full).

but by the looks of their forum activity numbers they have not been around since the days of proper full nodes terminology creation.. you know the days before full nodes even had the ability to prune and where by reality was that archiving by default and un-optionable was actually part of being a full node.

i understand in recent years the paradigm has changed where pruning is now the default and archiving is now optional.. . but that does not change what full meant right from the start(when full nodes meant full job).

as for quoting wiki.. you might want to read a little more then your prefered snippet

By default full nodes are inefficient in that they download each new transaction at least twice, and they store the entire block chain (more than 165 GB as of 20180214) forever, even though only the unspent transaction outputs (<2 GB) are required. Performance can improved by enabling -blocksonly mode and enabling pruning

again even the wiki is a few month out of date because now the default is that prune is ticked and to now archive, the option needs to be unticked. so as you can see things have changed where definitions have moved the goal post RECENTLY

it only became efficient to not archive SINCE pruning became an option. because full nodes before pruning was even a thing, was default store entire blockchain because there was no choice within a full node not to archive.

so yea. your basically saying the default definition of storing the blockchain has been re-defined since pruned was invented. and so you now want to say and pretend its always been a less=full scenario even when real history shows that 'full' was in its original terminology full=full

..
with all that said. if you want to be a pruned node. thats ok for you. just be honest that you are a pruned node and happy being one. no need for deception. no need to boost your level of involvement while not actually being able to perform the higher level of involvement. just be honest and happy with your choice to be limited part of the networks security and decentralisation. then be happy to learn what that limited level of network support your node is or is not helping with. and not assume you are fully supporting the network in full, by simply redefining your version of 'full'

[1713248656]

1713248656

[1713248656]

1713248656

[1713248656]

1713248656

[n0nce]

but by the looks of their forum activity numbers they have not been around since the days of proper full nodes terminology creation..

If you're referring to my account age, maybe consider a person can be in Bitcoin many years before creating a Bitcoin Talk account.

i understand in recent years the paradigm has changed where pruning is now the default and archiving is now optional.. . but that does not change what full meant right from the start(when full nodes meant full job).

[..]
now the default is that prune is ticked and to now archive, the option needs to be unticked. so as you can see things have changed where definitions have moved the goal post RECENTLY

Oh, you're such a self-proclaimed know-it-all but use Bitcoin Core only via GUI? I recently found out that the GUI changed; however never used it except to do the IBD on a fast computer once. All my nodes run on Linux CLI as a service (as they should for best uptime and best serve the network), and in CLI mode it's still default not to prune. Pruning is deliberately for the 'n00bs' that want to run Core on their laptop and similar. So it makes sense that for personal machines which aren't always on and such, people might be more disk space restricted, whereas someone setting up a dedicated Bitcoin node (who uses CLI) most probably has enough disk space allocated for running it in full archival mode.

it only became efficient to not archive SINCE pruning became an option. because full nodes before pruning was even a thing, was default store entire blockchain because there was no choice within a full node not to archive.

Even before pruning you could be not fully verifying or fully verifying. That's why the terminology exists longer than the pruned mode itself.

so yea. your basically saying the default definition of storing the blockchain has been re-defined since pruned was invented. and so you now want to say and pretend its always been a less=full scenario even when real history shows that 'full' was in its original terminology full=full

Now tell me: what is 'full' in your opinion? Fully archiving? What about Electrum? How can something that does not have all the bells and whistles be considered full? So in your terms, a full node must at least contain: Core with full archive + Electrum + Lightning; now when we get into LN you have to define how many and how large channels you need to be considered 'full'. I could argue that you're not a 'full node' if you don't offer me to transmit 1BTC to another person through your channels. We can go down this hole further and further; such as requiring you need to offer all services both through Tor and clearnet etc etc.

In the end, your definition is completely wrong (and has always been! full refers to the validation of the blockchain...), and I never heard anyone use your definition in almost 10 years now that I speak to people about BTC. It would never work anyway; because the definition of what is 'everything' (which seems to be your definition of 'full') always changes e.g. with the introduction of LN. There may be people considering you not running 'everything' if you're not running the sidechains as well, for example.

[franky1]

no its not about the noob GUI..
its about that since pruning even became an thing entirely. the whole definition has changed.
take cores system requirements of versions pre prune invention date. hard drive specification for running a core full node was excess of blockchain size. now since pruning that 'min system requirement' has altered.

Even before pruning you could be not fully verifying or fully verifying. That's why the terminology exists longer than the pruned mode itself.
..
Now tell me: what is 'full' in your opinion? Fully archiving? What about Electrum? How can something that does not have all the bells and whistles be considered full?

electrum? oh please!(facepalm). everyone refers to electrum as lite wallet/spv.
(just google 'electrum litewallet' or google 'electrum spv' and you will see millions of references)
also
other wallets and nodes that are not fully verifying or not archiving are classed as lite/spv/thin

seriously.. you really thought electrum was a full node?(facepalm)

not every wallet/node should be classed as a full just to give noobs the deceptive and false belief they are helping, when they are not fully helping. its ok to use bitcoin without being a full helper. be ok that you use bitcoin without fully helping the network if you are choosing your lifestyle doesnt require/want to help.


ok. this topic has derailed into debate that pruners and litewallet users want to call them selves full noders just to have some namebadge of importance, like they are the top guys and supporting the network... shame though that reality has shown they actually chosen not to be supporting the network.
hey its ok that you chose not to support the network. just be honest with yourself about your choice and be happy that your not.

anyways yea this topic has derailed into some social debate of redefining old terms to fit noobs sentiment of false level of network support. by trying to class bitcoins blockchain as non-important and insignificant..
such a shame that soo many people think blockchains are insignificant.

im moving on. this topic is dead.

edit:
to answer below.. as he still cant quite grasp it.
"electrum server" is not a stand alone software that works byitself. it requires also using bitcoind.

even when electrum server is running but not doing all the "backbone of the network" stuff. its not a full node
emphasis backbone of the network.
(unless you think theymos is wrong wrong too.. and you as a lite wallet user know better than theymos)

as for previous stuff about nodes that support alternative networks all in one. those are called 'master nodes'

and i never wanted or tried to claim myself as important. im just shocked that some people want to pretend there is a social hierarchy of non-devs where they deserve to be top guy amungst the dev group, while not supporting the backbone of the network.
my premiss is not to be a top guy or a 'buzzword definition election committees director'. im just calling out reality to people that are deceived or have been deceived. its called just spelling out the obvious. it requires no rank system.

maybe mentioning 'backbone of the network' 3 times isnt subtle enough hint about the wiki definition

[n0nce]

~

Dude, I'm obviously talking about running Electrum server (ElectrumX or electrs). Running either of those allows people to use SPV wallets without trusting the preset server; thus providing more services to the Bitcoin network. I was just showing two examples (Electrum & Lightning) of software that some may define as necessary to achieve 'full functionality'. This was all just to show that a definition of 'full node = full functionality' is super vague, since there is no hard set definition of 'full functionality' itself.

All in all, this whole argument is pointless, since it's obvious (and has always been) that the definition of full node is fully verifying node.

For example, take this page from December 2014:

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

Pruning was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.11.0. The release notes for 0.11.0 were written in August 2015, but I can't find that release in GitHub releases. The 0.11.1 release came out in November 2016.

So all in all, the definition was written down and accepted by everyone for 7 years now; while pruning only exists for effectively 5 years. You can even see in the Wiki diff, that that sentence has barely changed and its meaning is retained to this day. You even find a more thorough definition in the second element of the diff; where we can see they just removed the word 'core'.



Also what about this?

pruners and litewallet users want to call them selves full noders just to have so namebadge like they are the top guys

You're not a 'top guy' just because you run a full (pruned or not) node