Life and death are in the tongue.

I noticed the same thing; he's probably trying to stay neutral and maybe got some heat at the start when he was more anti-spam, so he's now hedging a bit. It's frustrating to watch as it unfolds, but hopefully we can get this fork thing going and put an end to the spam once and for all.

This guy counts

Uuidv7?

🐣 the salary

🍿

https://nym.bar/ is way better!

And if you need to use your own laptop, good luck getting paid.

You're completely right.

How is it positive that SpaceX will get more taxpayer money for the failed Starship program? https://youtu.be/EU6aJHqQKuU

You’re absolutely right that the IBD can’t be changed without a 51% attack — consensus security remains intact. But that’s not the point I’m making. Consensus and data availability are different things. Pruned nodes can verify the current state, but they can’t independently rebuild the chain history or proofs if archival nodes go offline. KIP-6 itself acknowledges this dependency: “Such a proof could only be generated before the transaction was pruned (or by using an archival node).” So while the IBD hash guarantees integrity, the ability to rebuild trust without relying on a subset of archival nodes is what’s lost over time. That’s the decentralization part of the trilemma — mathematically, as state size increases, the number of entities able to hold the full history decreases. So yes, the 51% rule still protects the ledger, but the independence of verification diminishes — and that’s exactly why no system “solves” the trilemma, it only shifts where the pressure lies.

And to induce more gun control

That’s a fair question, but the thing about the trilemma is that it isn’t something you “solve” — it’s a set of trade-offs you can only balance. If scalability increases, either security or decentralization must give way somewhere; it’s a mathematical inevitability, not a design flaw. So when I say there “won’t be enough” archival nodes, I’m not implying a specific threshold — I’m pointing out that at scale, the cost curve and hardware requirements push the network toward fewer independent verifiers. That’s not just a theory; it’s the core of the decentralization aspect of the trilemma. The problem isn’t with consensus safety — it’s that verifiability gradually shifts from something anyone can do to something only a few can afford.

“The attacker has proven to be malicious” bruh 🤣🤦‍♂ this cashu thing is a joke.

It's correct that pruned nodes can maintain IBD continuity through pruning proofs, but those proofs must be generated by full archival nodes. That’s straight from KIP-6: “Such a proof could only be generated before the transaction was pruned (or by using an archival node).” So if archival nodes become scarce, new pruned nodes can still verify, but they cannot independently regenerate or validate the roots of those proofs. The issue isn’t that IBD data disappears; it’s that the network’s ability to independently rebuild its trust base diminishes as archival nodes consolidate. And mathematically, with Kaspa’s projected block rate and scaling targets, that consolidation isn’t hypothetical—it’s inevitable. That’s why claiming the trilemma is “solved” instead of acknowledged is so misleading.

You’re right, the IBD itself isn’t lost. A pruned node still maintains a valid, verifiable state. What it can’t do is independently reconstruct or generate proofs for pruned history. KIP-6 even states it clearly: “Such a proof could only be generated before the transaction was pruned (or by using an archival node), but could be verified indefinitely.” According to the math of space complexity, the question isn’t if full archival nodes will become few, but when it’s inevitable—if Kaspa gains real adoption—because the data growth rate will always outpace what the average users can store. At that point, it’s essentially Ethereum all over again: still decentralized in theory, but practically dependent on a handful of data-center operators. If the Kaspa devs simply admitted that Kaspa is basically a better Ethereum because it’s a DAG and written in Rust, this conversation wouldn’t even exist. But insisting they’ve solved the trilemma, which isn’t possible due to the laws of network and computational trade-offs, while blocking anyone who shows the math, is extremely telling and a huge red flag.

Exactly pruning proofs makes verification cryptographically sound, but it doesn’t make it independent. Pruned nodes verify state transitions using proofs that come from full archival nodes. If the number of those full nodes decreases, the network’s ability to recover or audit history depends on trusting that small group. That’s the real risk—not that the math breaks, but that decentralization quietly diminishes. What worries me most is that Kaspa’s developers, especially Shai, refuse to acknowledge this trade-off while claiming they’ve “solved the trilemma.” When I shared the data, they blocked me instead of addressing the issue.

I saw on your profile that you're a bitcoiner, and that's all I need to know! For me, by the end of the day, it's all about risk management. If I can't run all the functions of the network—like the archival node, datum, and bitaxe miner—at a reasonable cost, then it's a no-go. Others might be okay with having some components, such as the archival nodes, centralized in the cloud, and that's fine. It's similar to how some people are okay with outsourcing their second amendment rights to the police because their risk assessment shows it’s more risky to keep a firearm at home.

KIP-6’s pruning proofs enhance validation speed but not independence. They enable pruned nodes to verify compact snapshots based on archival data, yet those proofs still rely on archival nodes to generate and distribute them. Therefore, while pruning reduces storage needs, it does not eliminate dependence on a few full-history custodians, maintaining the ongoing decentralization trade-off.

Right, those are pruned nodes, not archival ones. They can verify using pruning proofs, but they can’t reconstruct history. The few nodes that keep full history and support those proofs eventually move to cloud or data center setups, and that’s the true decentralization trade-off.