I'd use pruned node as a last resort when you have nothing left to try. who knows you might want to run something that requires everything down the road or if you ever need to rescan the chain for a wallet outside of your pruned window in the future

ive seen people stretch out disk space by moving the large, seldomly-accessed blocks/ folder to a separate disk (often slower) then run bitcoind with blocksdir parameter set so you can keep using your old disk alongside an external drive i dont know about btcpayserver or albyhub specifically, but imo if you're running a lightning node like LND, you probably dont want to prune your node especially if you have channel states that could fall beyond however long you're pruning for.

another example of philosophy flip-flopping (caveat: Core isnt a monolith -- different contributors now) are the comments Core made on compact block filters. when compact block filters was announced it was to announce to miners/pools to implement them in order to more closely align with the p2p network. at the time fees were elevated, as some exchanges and pools were stuffing blocks (perhaps to make an argument for big blocks). "follow the p2p network or risk your blocks being orphaned". this got turned on its head with the OP_Return PR. "node's compact block filters should follow what the miners are mining" i think those that throw the word gaslighting around Core proponents is because they arent goldfish 🧐

i made beef curry with weed butter before. i think sweets make it easier to hide the weed taste, i personally enjoy it enough but i can see why people wouldn't. theres also the convenience factor of munching on some cookies or brownies vs eating a whole entree to get high

praise kier 😂 the wait for season 2 was painful, while i want to know what happens next i wouldnt mind if they stopped at 2 and let the internet's imagination run wild obsessing over every frame forever

thats made up unquantifiable bullshit 😅

unspendable dust like inscriptions shouldnt need help to relay across the network then and transactions containing arbitrary data should be minimized not expanded those transactions dont help me receive more sats 🧐

turned 40 this year 🫠🫠

nodes only follow one chain 🤷 2 chains is a great rapper tho

nope, not a hardfork. bip110 uses existing consensus rules rather than adding new ones making it compatible with all nodes on the network nodes that enforce bip110 would not ever see the offending block as valid, making the enforcing node only ever compatible with one side of the chainsplit. nodes that dont enforce bip110 remain compatible with both , but only one side of the chainsplit carrying perpetual wipeout risk. both sides of the chainsplit ultimately cant coexist without a hard fork present a hardfork would explicitly reject bip110 blocks which would be adding a rule.