Topic: Does Bitcoin Core in prune mode support mining? (Read 773 times)

didnt you get the memo from your friends.
latest versions of core dont have mining code. they stripped it out(circa august 2016)

Before the troll twins Franky1 and Zin-Zang derail yet another topic, the question was not the definition of a full node.  Please consider starting a new topic if you want to discuss nomenclature.  Pruned nodes do support mining.  No amount of quibbling changes that.

This shallow debate is becoming amusing. Can everyone agree to call an unpruned archive node a "super full node", and a pruned node just a "full node"? Haha.

Or maybe someone from Core should make the terms official. But I already know a small group of people will make another political drama out of it because "it's centralizing".

to be a full node you need to offer a full service
validate AND archive

if your just a validator thats for your personal utility. as the next peer would also validate so you are not really serving them in regards to just validating.

other peers care more about being able to provide them with any/all archive data. thats the main part of the p2p network.
with knowing ~144 blocks a day are mined 550 is not really that much data. ~4 days.
some nodes are set to the 288 minimum (~2days)

many transactions hang in mempool limbo far longer. so if a peer comes online wants to build a block when it receives a blockheader. of 5 days ago..but a peer has removed data beyond 4 days ago. some tx's cant be bloom filtered to the peer wanting tx's from 5+days ago

thus its not offering a full service. thus not a full node.

maybe terminology needs to advance
think food

fullnode=NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
               =does it all including archiving and has segwit data
satisfiednode=NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
               =self validates. then prunes data. then only relays recent data
hungrynode=doesnt validate everything, just wants to feed off others
                =spv node/litenode
compatible=NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM
                =stripped(downstream filtered) legacy node(no segwit)

basically if ur not flagging all 4 flags, your not a full node

In this case I don't think that is really the motivation, to me it seems that (regardless of his other views) Zin-Zang just has a very specific belief about what "full node" means and has fallen into the trap of thinking that a definition is something that can be "right" or "wrong" independent of convention or context. "In most cases meaning is use", but this fact isn't always blindingly obvious which is presumably why Wittgenstein bothered writing it down.

In an alternative universe it could well have been the case that the Bitcoin convention established it the other way-- I believe in ours it did primarily because the whole usage of  the term "full node" came about in discussion of the security trade-offs of different ways of using the network (specifically in section 8, simplified payment verification, of the whitepaper).  If instead the term full node were first used in section 7 (reclaiming disk space),  it might have turned out differently-- though only might, because the big difference between having the old history on disk and not is just not terribly important in practice, while the difference between full verification and lite is substantial (including, re: the subject of this thread-- mining!). ... which is also presumably why Satoshi, like developers since, considered pruning as a function a node can do, not a different kind of node*.  [*though I expect as pruning becomes more common and more sophisticated we'll probably think more of nodes that have the full history as a different kind, the term that seems to be coming into use is 'archive']

If you're still thinking that it's improbably convenient that someone is suffering from mere confusion or explicable cognitive traps when those misunderstandings just happen to support some obvious-to-you batshit political argument... you shouldn't.  There are a zillion people on the internet and you can imagine misunderstandings being assigned by a (non-independent) lottery, some unfortunate folks are just going to by chance get assigned the mix of confusion that is compatible whatever it is that they're bugging you with and you don't hear from all the other people that got a different set of blessings from the confusion fairy.  The mistaken understandings and the bonkers politics can also self-reinforce...  It's true enough that malicious actors exist, but they're indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced ignorance and probably more rare than is easily assumed.  We're usually best off assuming ignorance:  Ignorance can be cured, even if people's commitments to past arguments sometimes make curing it difficult.  The success rate for the education wolves may not be that high but assuming malice has pretty much never cured anyone who was actually just confused.

Some of "them" deliberately make up new terms or challenge the terms established because they want to confuse everyone and then gaslight their way to manipulate them, especially the newbies.

But the truth will always be known, and "their" gaslighting will merely become memes.

Plus Zingzong is a believer that Zeitcoin will be the next "Bitcoin". Hahahaha!

The Satoshi white paper is irrelevant in this matter?   It's obvious you are not in the mood to be rational at all. If you are going to pooh-pooh the original words of the creator of Bitcoin itself, (and the one who basically invented the first working blockchain as well,) than it's really no use in having any kind of discussion with you at all.

What is being debated is the lie, that a pruned node is everybit a Full Node, which is implied when they mislead people and call it a full node.
How they pretend that is not confusing to newbies is beyond me, but I guess they figured their lie is ok.  
It is not.

There is no argument here about PoS vs PoW, only the false representation of the capabilities of a Pruned Node being exactly the same as a Full Node!

Maxwell is intentionally using the same word full node as descriptive of a Full Node with the Complete Blockchain and a Pruned Node with less than 4 days  .
NOT THE SAME as ONE cannot completely replace the other.

Satoshi Whitepaper is irrelevant , the English language & logic was around before all of us, and Truth is apparent.

For (Pruned Node = FULL NODE) it has to have the exact same capabilities.
Which it does not.

Saying a pruned node is a full node , is like saying a mini bike is a train.
Neither is = to their supposed counterpart.

---

 

LOL,  I seemed to have offended your religious belief in Satoshi as all knowing and all wise. 
1.  Smart yes, all knowing & all wise, no he/they are not, sorry to burst your bubble. He/They were mere mortals with High IQs.

maybe if you say 10 hail satoshis , he may appear to you in a vision.  

Sorry, I only believe in Deities that create the Universes.   

I do agree this conversation has been beat into the ground, and if you want to repeat a falsehood and be in error, so be it.
But I won't be swayed by unsupported authorities or group ignorance, the truth is the truth no matter how many of you speak the falsehood,
you have no power to change the true reality.

Good Day to all of you , my involvement in this discussion is over.