Good morning Mike, > > The problem with transaction being pruned is that the data in them might > now be used in a *future* `OP_PUBREF`. > > I can see how pruning is needed for scalability, and pruning can be made > compatible with a reference to a transaction. If a transaction is pruned, > then the key material used in a prune'ed block's PUSHDATA operations are of > no value. A user of the network shouldn't need to make this kind of PUBREF, > and if a user did want to bring a wallet back from the dead - then the > utility of PUBREF wouldn't be available to them.
I believe you misunderstand the point completely. Currently Bitcoin Core has a mode, called pruning, where: 1. It validates ***all*** transactions. 2. It throws away the transaction data of a block ***after*** validation. 3. It keeps only the UTXO set of ***all*** addresses, not just a specific wallet. Given the above, if a transaction block 1000 `OP_PUBREF`s to a `OP_PUSHDATA` in block 100, how does the pruned validator get access to this data (Which was pruned after the pruned validator handled block 100)? Note that pruned nodes ***are*** fullnodes and validate all transactions, not just those that involve their wallet. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
