[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Michael Sutton [@michaelsuttonil](/creator/twitter/michaelsuttonil) on x 23.1K followers Created: 2025-07-23 21:25:23 UTC First, please continue these discussions and open-minded challenging spirit since I think we all benefit from it. Re your main concern, I think the answer is simple. Pruning is a choice, not a law. At times of such extreme chaos, if a powerful majority (or minority) wishes its below-pruning-point-reorg should be socially accepted by other partitions of the network, he should be demanded to provide full data from the last agreed-upon historic pruning point. It is only new nodes that follow the superior pow as is, but the live network which normally rejects finality violations, should socially accept only fully valid data. two other independent comments: X. I don't acknowledge this threat model is viable/relevant. Unless the internet is strictly partitioned between continents or countries, honest participants from the stronger side would eventually propagate the blocks (even if it takes minutes or hours). Assuming the whole p2p net is controlled and propagates only internally to agreed members breaks all known consensus/internet models. I truly don't know if stateless internet money is a meaningful term in that case. X. Zero knowledge tech. With the tremendous progress of zk tech, pruned nodes can maintain a zk proof that their pruning point utxo state commitment is a result of legal transaction transitions. There are various degrees of such validation (eg anchored to sequencing or not), but it is possible nowadays (might need to switch to zk-friendly hash functions all over in order to make it more affordable) XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [socially](/topic/socially) [chaos](/topic/chaos) [Post Link](https://x.com/michaelsuttonil/status/1948132360425205897)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Michael Sutton @michaelsuttonil on x 23.1K followers
Created: 2025-07-23 21:25:23 UTC
First, please continue these discussions and open-minded challenging spirit since I think we all benefit from it.
Re your main concern, I think the answer is simple. Pruning is a choice, not a law. At times of such extreme chaos, if a powerful majority (or minority) wishes its below-pruning-point-reorg should be socially accepted by other partitions of the network, he should be demanded to provide full data from the last agreed-upon historic pruning point. It is only new nodes that follow the superior pow as is, but the live network which normally rejects finality violations, should socially accept only fully valid data.
two other independent comments:
X. I don't acknowledge this threat model is viable/relevant. Unless the internet is strictly partitioned between continents or countries, honest participants from the stronger side would eventually propagate the blocks (even if it takes minutes or hours). Assuming the whole p2p net is controlled and propagates only internally to agreed members breaks all known consensus/internet models. I truly don't know if stateless internet money is a meaningful term in that case.
X. Zero knowledge tech. With the tremendous progress of zk tech, pruned nodes can maintain a zk proof that their pruning point utxo state commitment is a result of legal transaction transitions. There are various degrees of such validation (eg anchored to sequencing or not), but it is possible nowadays (might need to switch to zk-friendly hash functions all over in order to make it more affordable)
XXXXX engagements
