esomore · September 12, 2023 04:56
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 # GHOSTDAG Protocol vs. Bitcoin's Decentralization

 While pruned nodes present an innovative solution to address the storage problem brought about by high TPS, it's crucial to consider the broader implications of this approach on network decentralization and neutrality. The **GHOSTDAG protocol**, as detailed by Sutton and Wyborski, introduces a set of rules that miners must follow to support secure pruning of the DAG. The protocol's main proposition suggests that if certain conditions are met, blocks can be safely pruned without compromising the integrity of the network.

 In contrast, **Bitcoin**, the original decentralized cryptocurrency, has been tested over a decade and has proven its commitment to neutrality and decentralization. Its consensus mechanism ensures that no single entity can control or dominate the network<sup>1</sup>. As Bitcoin's popularity grew, so did its transaction volume, leading to scalability challenges. However, the Bitcoin community has explored and implemented several scaling solutions, such as the **Lightning Network**<sup>2</sup>, **Segregated Witness (SegWit)**<sup>3</sup>, and **Schnorr signatures**<sup>4</sup>, to address these issues. These solutions have made it feasible to conduct microtransactions, making it possible to buy everyday items like coffee with Bitcoin.

 The GHOSTDAG protocol's security is underpinned by the assumption that there isn't a 51% attacker and that splits of depth φ are negligible. This assumption, while theoretically sound, could be tested in real-world scenarios where network conditions and adversarial behaviors can be unpredictable.

 Furthermore, the paper outlines specific pruning invalidation rules, ensuring that the pruning process doesn't inadvertently remove essential blocks. While these rules provide a robust framework for pruning, the practical implications of such a system need to be evaluated, especially concerning network bootstrapping, redundancy, resilience, and decentralization.

 To ensure the robustness of **Kaspa's** claim in solving the trilemma, it would be enlightening to hear more about how the network plans to maintain a balance between pruned and full nodes, and how it ensures continued decentralization and neutrality in the face of increasing data demands.
	# GHOSTDAG Protocol vs. Bitcoin's Decentralization

	While pruned nodes present an innovative solution to address the storage problem brought about by high TPS, it's crucial to consider the broader implications of this approach on network decentralization and neutrality. The GHOSTDAG protocol, as detailed by Sutton and Wyborski, introduces a set of rules that miners must follow to support secure pruning of the DAG. The protocol's main proposition suggests that if certain conditions are met, blocks can be safely pruned without compromising the integrity of the network.

	In contrast, Bitcoin, the original decentralized cryptocurrency, has been tested over a decade and has proven its commitment to neutrality and decentralization. Its consensus mechanism ensures that no single entity can control or dominate the network<sup>1</sup>. As Bitcoin's popularity grew, so did its transaction volume, leading to scalability challenges. However, the Bitcoin community has explored and implemented several scaling solutions, such as the Lightning Network<sup>2</sup>, Segregated Witness (SegWit)<sup>3</sup>, and Schnorr signatures<sup>4</sup>, to address these issues. These solutions have made it feasible to conduct microtransactions, making it possible to buy everyday items like coffee with Bitcoin.

	The GHOSTDAG protocol's security is underpinned by the assumption that there isn't a 51% attacker and that splits of depth φ are negligible. This assumption, while theoretically sound, could be tested in real-world scenarios where network conditions and adversarial behaviors can be unpredictable.

	Furthermore, the paper outlines specific pruning invalidation rules, ensuring that the pruning process doesn't inadvertently remove essential blocks. While these rules provide a robust framework for pruning, the practical implications of such a system need to be evaluated, especially concerning network bootstrapping, redundancy, resilience, and decentralization.

	To ensure the robustness of Kaspa's claim in solving the trilemma, it would be enlightening to hear more about how the network plans to maintain a balance between pruned and full nodes, and how it ensures continued decentralization and neutrality in the face of increasing data demands.