Damus
Rik · 6d
How will node runners decide? Does the software have to be updated? Does this mean a hard fork for every "cautious change"? What is part of the resource growth can be actually attributed to spam? So...
nostrich profile picture
Pruning nodes is centralizing nodes. We need full nodes to bootstrap other nodes. If full nodes are only run by a handful of hardcore libertarian Bitcoiners and large institutions with legal teams to fight for their ability to run full nodes, then nodes are too centralized and too easily captured.

Pruned nodes keep the past couple of days of full blocks and also relay valid transactions and blocks so it’s not as clean a solution to potential legal risks as you might assume. Tightening consensus rules to make it more difficult to embed spam within a “valid” transaction prevents nodes from relaying or storing those transactions, so it’s more protection for node runners.
1
Rik · 5d
I agree that running a node already can have legal risks, although it is a gray area. That already is the case, as the blockchain already contains illegal content. I think it would be more fruitful if efforts are put in to create legal clarity in different jurisdictions. Also, what options are there...
nostrich · 3d
Getting legal clarity is definitely important. I think we should also work to minimize risks, and the active minimization of risks probably helps jurisdictions get more comfortable with the protocol.