207700+ entries in 0.139s
davout: if "cutting one's own
throat" == "not being able
to reverify" i'll agree
mircea_popescu: that
the absence of such miracle dieters will scarcely be felt is
true ; but not sure if
that's relevant
to you.
davout: i
think pruning would compare better
to cutting everyone's
throat "just a little" bit
than "cutting one's own
throat"
mircea_popescu: it's safe
to say you probably missed some PARTICULAR arguments ; but it's probably safe
to say you did get
the fundamental argument, which is : you do, you die.
mircea_popescu: sort-of like asking for particular arguments against cutting your own
throat.
davout: so yeah, i'm satisfied with
the answers in
the sense
that i did not miss any particular argument against pruning
davout: trinque: basically your point, which seems absolutely valid, is
that past a certain depth you simply can't do a reorg, right?
davout: mircea_popescu: not really because i'm not particularly interested in discussing pruning from a position where i'm somehow supposed
to defend it
davout: asciilifeform:
the "full chain"
thing is simply in
the context of asking a clarification
to
the question
mircea_popescu: it's apparently
the most deeply cherished delusion, of
the young-man-and-his-biddle,
that "alternatives!!1"
a111: Logged on 2017-03-10 14:50 Framedragger: i like my rc airplanes. "the will of history necessitates you
to X" has a marx'ified hegelian vibe :p
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform what'd
the usg love more
than for it
to fade!
to become "technologies"!
to etc.
mircea_popescu: bitcoin really doesn't have
that many nodes active, nor has, for a while now.
mircea_popescu: currently, blockchain is a ~whole~ story which has
to check out.
this can be verified. a partial story can never check out, and consequently can never be verified.
davout: trinque: in
that particular case what criterion would you refuse
them upon if you had
the full chain anyway?
trinque: so you either ignore and maybe you're forked off
to nowhere land, or you accept, and blindly
trinque: you have nothing
to base it upon
trinque: can't even say
they ~ever~ were a part of bitcoin
trinque: say someone comes at you with blocks further back
than your prune, and you are compelled
to accept
them by hash rate
trinque: davout: it goes
the other way
too
davout: which is basically what everything
that has been said regarding pruning boiled down
to
trinque: whole
thing doesn't even have
to be SSD; I routinely shuffle off chunks of bdb
to platters
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i see no need for
the subertfuge. if
tomorrow
thing is pruned
to include "last 1k blocks" i'll just mine a 1k long chain in which everyone donates
their coin
to me, and bomb all
the miners who refuse
to mine on it. pie.
davout: i'm merely looking for
things i'd have missed apart from "being unable
to serve peers historical data is a dealbreaker"
trinque: thing wants something like 50Gb per year; couple of
terabytes and you're good for a long
time.
trinque: any "bitcoin on muh smart watchz" notions...
things not capable of bitcoinating can connect
to something
that is, and ask
mircea_popescu: which is EXACTLY how it works : blockchain replacement now costs
the whole weight of 400k blocks.
mircea_popescu: to which
the only sane lucentio answer is "fu, i own
them, and if you don't like it ask me."
mircea_popescu: and
this situation you wish
to replace with "because we say so, and if you don';t like it ask another one of us".
mircea_popescu: no but consider. we currently have
the situation where lucentio of pisa comes
to padua, and inquires, "who owns
these houses ?" and gets answer "x, y, z, k" and
then inquires "oh yeah ? how do i know
that ?" and gets answer, "because
they bought from endless list
tracing back
to
the dude
that built
them".
davout: "eat your cake, have it
too"?
trinque: surely
that wasn't 'every clever kid wants a fish
to eat and a cock
to sit upon' ?
davout: google
translate doesn't exactly help: "et le poisson à manger, et assis sur la bite"
davout: asciilifeform: yeah, sure you're not serving peers
the historical data,
that's
the single
thing
that seems very wrong with pruning, at least
to me
mircea_popescu: i'm not even sure what
the
thought process is here, beyond "i don't want
to store books because momstate makes libraries and oh, where did anything but cosmo go ?!"
davout: trinque: "if
the whole net is
trimming" <<<
that seems like a valid objection
to me
davout: doesn't really matter where you get it from, as long as it verifies, you're not asking your connected peers for a wot identity, yet you
take
their data and verify it independently
davout: mircea_popescu: nobody's asking you
to
trust someone on his word,
to each his own chain copy
trinque: if
the whole net is
trimming how am I with a new node going
to verify once
davout: i contend
that verifying "once" is not
that different from "verifying at will"
mircea_popescu: davout because who
the fuck are you and why do i have
to
take your word and if your house burns down what do you do.
mircea_popescu: it'd necessarily be a scheme with expiring coins, seems
to me.
davout: mircea_popescu: how is it nonsense if i have personnally verified
the chain?
mircea_popescu: as
to
the direct question, a pruned chain may make sense, if someone came up with a way
to do it sanely.
this seems impossible on bitcoin-as-it-is, and perhaps unlikely in
the general.
mircea_popescu: the defense
to something stupid isn't picking something else
that's stupid
to be yelled at
top of lungs.
mircea_popescu: i'm not proposing
the solution is acceptable. i am showing you
that your OVERSTRONG STATEMENT is nonsense.
a111: Logged on 2017-02-27 16:56 mircea_popescu: but
the correct
trb-i might just as well end up
this situation where block reward is 1mn bitcoin, and it dies within 1mn blocks. so all mining does is produce ~ a lease ~ on a chunk of bitcoin. and
the value of old bitcoin is monotonically decreasing over
their lifetime.
davout: your copy of
the blockchain being personal i don't see any other problem
than peer-service, if, and only if, you've validated it as validly producing
the UTXO set you consider valid
mircea_popescu: davout in principle nothing ; in practice if you can't justify whence
the coins came
then what do you have
davout: i see not being able
to serve historical data
to peers as
the major one from where i stand
mircea_popescu: mpoe-pr didn't have "dev"
talk on her list and who else read
that shithole lol.
davout: as a naive question, what exactly is
the problem with pruning?
mod6: <+davout> it did not occur
to
these monkeys
that somehow it might also make sense
to ~not~ include a subject line reading "O HAI YOU HAZ X DEPOSIT KTHXBYE" << lol, huuurrrr
ben_vulpes: don't get me wrong, responding in context is entirely adequate most of
the
time
ben_vulpes: danielpbarron: yeah, but falls apart if i want
to hold onto a signed
thing.
davout: it did not occur
to
these monkeys
that somehow it might also make sense
to ~not~ include a subject line reading "O HAI YOU HAZ X DEPOSIT KTHXBYE"
davout: in other GPG-related lulz, when I decided
to give
the kraken idiots a chance, i
ticked
the "Encrypt mail sent
to me with GPG" and gave my key
a111: Logged on 2017-03-16 18:41 ben_vulpes: enTIREly unrelated, does anyone know how
to get gpg
to decrypt a message
that is also signed, but
to produce
the signature in addition
to saying
that
the signature is good?
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: ah ok, i guess
the issue is
that
the sig is part of binary blob, need
to convert it, etc, hrmh
danielpbarron: i really like
the implied sig of
the encrypt part of received message back
to sender.
that way neither party can hold signed material against
the other in public
Framedragger: ben_vulpes: sorry for being obtuse, but if by 'show signature' you mean print signature in ascii-armored way, why can't you `echo 'foo' | gpg --clearsign > a.txt`,
then `cat a.txt | gpg --encrypt --recipient recipient-username > b.bin`,
then `gpg --decrypt b.bin`? (this assumes gpg is interactive and will ask for password, so best
to break it into multiple commands)
trinque: he proposes stuffing
the sausage in a sock
davout: ben_vulpes: only a
terrorist would want
to see
the signature