No. I’m not wrong. With the actual pruning you need first to download all the blockchain.
Block pruning allows Bitcoin Core to delete the raw block and undo data once > it’s been validated and used to build the databases. At that point, the raw data
is used only to relay blocks to other nodes, to handle reorganizations, to look
up old transactions (if -txindex is enabled or via the RPC/REST interfaces), or
for rescanning the wallet. The block index continues to hold the metadata about
all blocks in the blockchain.
And more…
Block pruning is currently incompatible with running a wallet due to the fact
that block data is used for rescanning the wallet and importing keys or
addresses (which require a rescan.) However, running the wallet with block
pruning will be supported in the near future, subject to those limitations.
I use bitcoin all of the time and have never downloaded the Blockchain.
End of discussion.
You can do whatever you choose, but that doesn’t mean you must.
Anyone who argues otherwise is making contention for the sake of contention. “If you don’t do it the REALLY REALLY hard way, you aren’t doing it right” Yes I am. It works fine.
That would be me. For what it’s worth, I have been writing software for about 2 decades and mined my first 100 bitcoins on an old Dell Inspiron laptop several years ago.
We don’t all have time to keep up to speed with each new feature added. I haven’t run a full node since GPU mining started to dominate, frankly because I wasn’t convinced it was worth the price of the electricity at the time.
You seem very happy to criticize others, yet show very little willing to understand their positions. No one has a monopoly on knowledge and experience and a wise man realises this. Learning is all about sharing and listening.
As everywhere, in the net, still insist on the need to download all blockchain even in the case of using pruning, and bully attitudes produce me deep mistrust, I lost my time to made the test installing the bitcoin core in a clean computer with the pruning option enabled or not.
I left the program running half an hour each time, of course erasing all the data between test, and this is the results
Normal without pruning:
I can agree with this. As a friend put it to me over e-mail months ago:
“Why don’t you just create a Bitcoin wallet using http://www.bitaddress.org? It takes seconds, and you can just withdraw to that. And you have sole control over it.”
“Why would doing anything else even be necessary?”
This isn’t good for the network though. You want lots of full nodes to keep the thing robust and decentralised.
To put it another way, if everyone ran a light node, there would be no Bitcoin.
Ofc, this doesn’t nullify your point, but we have to consider this. With safe net, there should be more of an opportunity for the average user to also be a full node.
For example, the most important on-line bitcoin wallet, blockchain.info, was hacked.
With bitaddress.org you can create a wallet (a private key and one or multiple public keys). With that you can receive bitcoin o check your balance but you need to import the private key into a wallet to send bitcoin.
Yes, but I don’t have to be part of the network of full nodes unless I choose to be.
It is less secure. But how much? Not much.
There is a strong bias within the bitcoin community towards “The most paranoid practice is the best practice” But it is that attitude the interferes with it’s adoption… Most people do not need a dedicated offline armory wallet and dedicated printer for example.
And there are plenty of venture capitalists with millions of dollars on the line who can afford to host the blockchain several times in several locations. Every user doesn’t need to be a node for the network to keep on tickin’
Either way, it undermines bitcoin security compared to Safecoin close group consensus, which gets more secure with scale and scales without favouring centralisation. So a ledger solution running natively on SAFE Network is far superior (assuming we get there, which I do ).
The Paranoid version of Bitcoin is probably more secure than SAFEcoin – You can create addresses that have never touched the internet. SAFE is always only in the network and thus reliant on credentials that as susceptible to keyloggers malware etc.
Perhaps there may be a way to create a “cold wallet” address offline?
I am less reassured than your good self. There have been a few times when single syndicates/pools have held near majority shares of the network. Such a system could be abused by bad actors.
It may never become an issue, but more decentralised full nodes, the better.
There are a lot of people with a lot more resources at risk than I. My investment only needs to be proportional to my risk… The market will insure that those who have a lot at risk take the steps necessary to protect their investment…
Welcome to the forums @tierce There is plenty to read about the SAFE netowrk and I am sure that you will see that its more about the network features than the coin.
I would doubt it’s a basic income in the sense that not everyone who uses the network earns coins.
At this point farmers and app devs earn, and end users spend.
Safecoin has a circulation mechanism wherein the network, who is paying these farmers and app devs, is paid for the storage of data. It may be said to be an autonomous bank…although not many like the word “bank” here!
At the basis, it is more of a free market than anything else unless a paradigm shift occurs based on users behaviors. If you would like to find out more, I would highly recommend starting a new thread under the “safecoin” category. Also a bit more information about your assumptions would go a long way in answering your question.
).
