|
|
|
|
|
by dmitriid
1541 days ago
|
|
> there are many reasons why particular actors would want to retain that data > data availability is likely to remain incentivized within dedicated sub-protocols > private entities that will have their own external incentives to retain that data A lot of wishful thinking which is presented as fact. Someone somewhere might still retain all that data because someone somewhere might have some incentives, and hopefully someone might still retain that data. Whereas the reality is this: history will be purged. There are zero guarantees for availability of any historical data after the purge. Additionally, the linked reddit thread is hilarious. "State expiry is so important for decentralisation, so we're proposing a solution where actual history and state is stored on a few centralised nodes, maybe". And there are literally no answers to the question "what happens to historical data" except "well maybe there will be altruism and maybe there will be incentives to store data in some protocols, oh and this centralised service infura surely will want to store the data, trust us it will never disappear". Yeah, right. |
|