Just one node needs to not agree to delete data nefariously, for it to remain stored.
But more than one node would likely agree.
"Bollox"
Post by Ironshirtz
ah the one node argument🤦🏼♂️
then your data is centralized to one node
and can be censored or removed easily
there are no companies yet offering to be an archival node
the cost would be nuts
and is basically no different to AWS or other cloud providers
there is no guaranty your blob data will remain available, none.
running a node on BSV is already beyond the publics reach
it is expensive even for a startup
the chain is already 10TB,
just for jpegs and twetch comments
imagine an on-chain world with everything
you would be talking TB's daily
factor in RAID
miners will not preserve data when the cost outweighs the reward
even teranode is designed to prune spent utxo's after just 2 days
you think miners will care about your jpegs and "GM" messages lol
What the chain says
- Block
- 963 250
- Time
- 2026-08-21T08:33:57Z
- Signer
- 1aUt6NCxtVcFg9aZRqKboQX7XVY4HjRpF
- App
- twetch
- Type
- reply
- Content type
- text/markdown
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1aUt6NCxtVcFg9aZRqKboQX7XVY4HjRpF UnverifiedReplies (10)
Except it wouldn't be just one node, that's just the extreme scenario.
10TB hard drive is ~400CAD
Not all mining orgs would go along with nefarious data deletion just because you keep saying they would.
dude
words have meaning
you can not speak in absolutes
data CAN be pruned
YOU have no control over what miners do
just because it has not been done
does not mean it cannot be done
"Every miner might agree to arbitrarily and nefariously delete data/follow court ordered nefarious data deletion someday" is not a rational outlook bud.
they do not need to agree
they can all act independently
no court order is needed for any of this