When I post about $KAS I get a bunch of engagement from folks with arguments that would be compelling if I didn’t already understand what happens to shitcoins. When I post about BIP-110 I get less engagement, and even less compelling arguments. It’s frankly embarrassing.

@BTCBreadMan BTC’ers have 2 choices: 1. Node centralization. 2. Lack of fee paying tx’s that secure the network. Both are not great for the network. The solution is to scale the base layer (block speed) and not forcing full nodes to hold the entire tx history. UTXO sets are all it needs.

@KasGobbler Full nodes are not forced to hold the entire tx history. They are required to initially download it to validate the chain, and then they can optionally prune it down dramatically. To 10gb, 2gb, etc. At which point they remain a fully validating node.

@BTCBreadMan @KasGobbler Pruned nodes are not as useful as full-nodes though. You need full nodes with the entire transaction history in order for new nodes to download the entire chain. If everyone ran pruned nodes, the network would die.

@BitcoinIsaiah @KasGobbler Correct. But I currently don’t see any reason why everyone, or even most people, would prune their node. I just wanted to make sure the Kaspa fella knew it was possible.

@BTCBreadMan @BitcoinIsaiah @KasGobbler This is a fallacy that you guys need to correct, just to not seem dumb in scientific conversations. And btw you can ask your AI how it works in simple terms. x.com/coderofstuff_/…

@simogattok @BTCBreadMan @BitcoinIsaiah @KasGobbler btc doesn’t have utxo commitments which is why this same process as done in kas won’t work there.