Would an Armageddon and new Genesis be possible?

[zeuner]

Also, why should it weaken long-term value storage? As long as an address has a balance, it would appear in the Armageddon block. Not a single Satoshi would be lost.

More accurately, it would weaken _trustless_ long-term value storage. People would be expected to trust the Armageddon block if the whole effort is supposed to bring any advantage. But many users use Bitcoin exactly because it minimizes trust in single parties.

[d5000]

More accurately, it would weaken _trustless_ long-term value storage. People would be expected to trust the Armageddon block if the whole effort is supposed to bring any advantage. But many users use Bitcoin exactly because it minimizes trust in single parties.

The "Armageddon" block would essentially work like the checkpoints that were already part of Bitcoin Core since close to the beginning. Only that it would be nice to attach a (then-)current UTXO set to it, so the verification would be easier than if you had to reccur to archival nodes.

The "trust issue" for these blocks would lie in the question if they're really the longest chain tip at that moment, or if they are attack blocks (i.e. blocks that normally would have been orphaned). But that question would resolve quite fastly. If the Armageddon block has 1000 confirmations, the possibility for it to be reverted by a reorg is minuscule. A client version which would store a fake Armageddon block would lose all trust. (And of course clients should not drop all previous blocks once an Armageddon block has been recorded.)

Thus, it would perhaps not be fully trustless, but trust needed would be really minuscule. However, ZeroSync-style techniques to my knowledge would be much better because the proofs for the correctness of a certain block height would always be stored by all nodes, or all nodes using that technique.

The mini-blockchain scheme (which is what the "Armageddon" technique basically describes), does work in some altcoins. However, it would perhaps create an additional incentive for destructive 51% attacks because the damage caused by such an attack would be higher, as you could try to rewrite history if the "common block history window" around the Armageddon block is too short.

[philipma1957]

If it's frustrating running full node, you have option to run prune node as relief you know.

True, but it still means I have to download everything first.
And with a pruned node, you cannot import an old address because you need the pruned data to get the history, right?

Maybe I explained it poorly. I did not mean the Armageddon block to be a clean cut, but more like a special (big) block that sits in the chain like every other block.
So you can start with block 0 if you do not trust anybody, but if you think that the Armageddon block can be trusted because it is verified in the chain like every other block, you start with that one and skip the previous ones.

If you can trust someone else, you can download folder of pruned Bitcoin Core. Some people/group provide it, including BTCPay under name "Fast sync". See https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcpayserver-docker/tree/master/contrib/FastSync.

Home hardware scales much faster than the blockchain grows

I'm more concerned about RAM than storage.
--snip--

It's even worse if you consider current RAM shortage and price.

Yeah ram is money.  4 sticks of 8gb ram ddr5 cost about 250 usd  used ram if you find a deal  on ebay.

So a z790 mobo is around 170
A psu 100 bucks
A used i5 13500 150
32gb ram 250
A case 60
A 2 tb ssd over 200
A 4 tb hdd for back up 150
A cheap gpu 100

And around 1200 built should be good for 5 years

That is expensive.


If you go on ebay there are older laptops with ddr4 which is cheaper to up grade.

I could and did make a good Linux os hp 15 inch model before the tarrif for about 450 .

32gb ram and 2tb ssd

I did a thread on it.



This model is cheap enough

https://www.ebay.com/itm/286601719329?

32gb ram

 with a shit ssd  is cheap.


Cost is $380. Just swap out the shit ssd and put in a bigger one.

If you have zero skills buy  it with the 1tb ssd

Cost 550 comes with legit windows

[PocketAurora]

Interesting idea, but that would basically break one of Bitcoin’s core properties: verifiability from genesis. A full node isn’t just about balances — it’s about proving how those balances came to be. If you replace history with a snapshot, you’re asking users to trust that snapshot. That shifts Bitcoin from trustless -  trusted checkpoint. Good explanation here: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

[FrankS]

Interesting idea, but that would basically break one of Bitcoin’s core properties: verifiability from genesis. A full node isn’t just about balances — it’s about proving how those balances came to be. If you replace history with a snapshot, you’re asking users to trust that snapshot. That shifts Bitcoin from trustless -  trusted checkpoint. Good explanation here: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

If you would have read the entire thread, you would have read that my suggestion is to include the Armageddon block(s) in the blockchain, so you can do both: verify from the Genesis, or trust the Armageddon.

[LoyceV]

my suggestion is to include the Armageddon block(s) in the blockchain, so you can do both: verify from the Genesis, or trust the Armageddon.

As a full node owner, I don't really need an extremely large block adding many additional gigabytes to my blockchain just so that other people can have a smaller blockchain.

[FrankS]

my suggestion is to include the Armageddon block(s) in the blockchain, so you can do both: verify from the Genesis, or trust the Armageddon.

As a full node owner, I don't really need an extremely large block adding many additional gigabytes to my blockchain just so that other people can have a smaller blockchain.

You opted for a full node, getting close to 1TB in size, and because of a few GB more, you want that everybody else also downloads and verifies 1TB instead of starting with just a few GB?
Sorry, but that sounds absolutely egoistical: "I don't want it, so let's keep it bad for everybody else".
Ever thought that the ever increasing chain size might support centralization, because it is getting less interesting and feasable to run your own node?
Decentralization was the big point of Bitcoin.

[LoyceV]

because of a few GB more, you want that everybody else also downloads and verifies 1TB instead of starting with just a few GB?

Nice try to twist things around.

Sorry, but that sounds absolutely egoistical: "I don't want it, so let's keep it bad for everybody else".

So you want other people to do more work, so you can do less work. If anyone is egoistical in this discussion, it's you.

I'm running a public Electrum server that has been used to send thousands of transactions and can be used by anyone who doesn't want to download the full blockchain. What's your contribution to Bitcoin?

Ever thought that the ever increasing chain size might support centralization, because it is getting less interesting and feasable to run your own node?
Decentralization was the big point of Bitcoin.

You should probably read up on the past 15 years of discussion about this subject, instead of throwing accusations around.

[FrankS]

Nice try to twist things around.

Not that much of a twist. You complain about a few GB more, so everybody else should download TB more.

So you want other people to do more work, so you can do less work. If anyone is egoistical in this discussion, it's you.

Apart from the devel point, what more work? Blocks are getting signed this way or another.
And it's not about me. It's a suggestion to make it easier for everybody who wants to run a node so they don't have to trust a 3rd party.

I'm running a public Electrum server that has been used to send thousands of transactions and can be used by anyone who doesn't want to download the full blockchain. What's your contribution to Bitcoin?

You accused me of twisting things around, and now you play the "I run a server and if you don't contribute, you are not eligible to make suggestions" card?
That's an "I'm holier than you" argument.

You should probably read up on the past 15 years of discussion about this subject, instead of throwing accusations around.

I have accused nobody. I only made a suggestion.