Is it possible to sync and prune simultaneously?

Yes, that's exactly what syncing a pruned node does

Enabling pruning after the node is already synced will discard previously-saved data, while enabling pruning before syncing will reduce the data that gets saved on disk

How do I do that? Normally I just run monerod to get up to date and after that I prune

That's not a good strategy, because pruning after sync does not reduce the space occupied by the chain

Run monerod with --prune-blockchain at least once, preferably on the first start.

Or rather: data.mdb file stays the same size even after pruning, but the space that you "freed" will get reused during future sync before expanding the file again

moneromooo: if you do that on the first start, will that choice be "remembered" in future runs? Or will the node save all the (future) data if you remove that flag?

Pruning can only be enabled, never disabled.

If you want to keep all new data, you'd have to delete your chain and sync anew.

Oooh, I see. Thanks!

/msg alis help

oops

is it really impossible to track monero?

Is it really impossible to land a jetliner with all engines blown ? No, it happened before. Same here. It is just hard and depends a lot of the circumstances.

You may want to watch the "breaking monero" videos. They explain some/most of those circumstances.

What is the replacement of payment id? If there are any

You can use subaddresses if you want to switch.

Danilo82: Is anything at all impossible? "No, as far as we really know."

Danilo82: Monero is extremely difficult to track, probably more so than any other cryptocurrency. With halfway decent opsec in both cases, it's also probably more difficult than cash, too.

Danilo82: For almost all use cases, I believe that coupling Monero with halfway decent opsec is sufficient.

I was going to smartarsey say "travelling at more than c", but then... tachyons are theoretically possible...

I've also seen physics theories suggesting that going faster than the speed of light just turns into travelling backward in time, and that photos are essentially the time-agnostic particle.

s/photos/photons/

Yes, it'd turn your light cone back. AFAIK, the impossibility is switching between slower/faster than c.

Bypass the switch, then.

har

You just have to go on an Extreme Diet. Reduce your mass enough, and you can accelerate past the speed of light.

Reduce it more than enough, and you would have to expend energy to keep from accelerating!

wheee

assuming there's such a thing as negative mass

which I do not assume

Well, mass can be seen as a derivative of space time curvature AFAIK, so...

I just tend to make a habit of not assuming things.

I may make practical assumptions, but distinguish them from conceptual assumptions.

This is above my pay grade, but I can look at it like a projection. You lose information when looking at the projection, but the "generator" has more degrees of freedom.

Are you talking about something like a map projection?

Hmm. The easy way to see if is a 3D shape projected onto a 2D surface. If all you know is the 2D surface, and if the 3D shape doesn't move much, you get a feel of the behaviour the 2D projection.

And from that, you can make rules about its behaviour. And thus start making assumptions and predictions, which typicallly work.

right

But if the 3D shape starts doing things that a 3D shape can do, but just wasn't doing before, the 2D shape can do really WTF things.

e.g. the size of Greenland

So I try to keep that in mind when reading about things I do not know much about.

I guess, yes.

Really, it just means I try to keep in mind I have no clue about most things :D

It looks *HUGE* in Mercator projections.

It's ridiculous.

Negative mass is one of those things. It seems to make no sense intuitively, but mass is a quantity that's derived from space time curvature, therefore it could have weird behaviour if curvature is not the usual curvature.

Yeah, I don't assume there isn't such a thing as negative mass, either.

And the "missing link" I can relate to here is time dilation. Speeds seem additive, at sane speeds. But as speeds approach c, the behaviour changes, in such a way that it all works out at low speeds.

Check out the size of Greenland here: cdn.onestopmap.com/wp-content/uploa…a-centered-vm-wkworld-e31-1-web.jpg

I see the linear behaviour as a projection really. You see things in a limited domain, and interpolating is fraught.

I'm reasonably sure I saw references to negative mass in some theories before. Of course, it's mainly "it works out in equations".

right

Meanwhile, I seem to have a nonlinear perspective relationship with time.

But "works out in equations" is a good rule of thumb to see if there's not an overarching system in which your known working model of reality is not just a projection (or special case) of that new system.

I don't recall events particularly chronologically, outside of "now".

Anyway, I say that, but I really have no clue about physics.

I'm not exactly a physicist, either.

Well, memory is not intrinsically linear. It appears to be a set of facts, and the before/after may not be inherent in the memory.

"facts" is not really the right word here. Images/feelings is more like it.

Timing info may be part of it, but not necessarily. It could also only be inferred from the image/feeling itself.

What I found fascinating is the fact they they seem to behave like JPEG. You still remember, but with less detail.

Most people just have a much clearer set of time referents with their memories than I have.

Given it's neuron based, it means some neurons get repurposed, but in such a way that the lost input of those repurposed neurons do not necessarily lost part of the memory, but its level of detail.

I think my memory works more off a causation model, which means something that happened when I was eight and something that happened when I was 14 may not be identifiable by me as having happened in any particular order if there are no clues within the memories themselves and if one of them occurred with no distinct sense of the other having a causal relationship with it.

I say "necessarily" because you do lose some of the "area", but the level of detail is what I find so intriguing.

"works", meaning "is organized according to" or something like that

OK, I never read anything about this, but it's believable that memory might, in part, work in "referential" mode, where a memory piggy backs another and build differences.

This could also explain why sometimes you mix memories.

That makes some sense.

It might imply that losing some detail from one memory could also necessarily depend on loss of similar detail in another.

It's also a good compression system, which would be an evolutionary pressure.

Be careful with your rebasing.

And that can also explain false memories, which are a practical real life problem in courtrooms.

Though that is of course idle speculation. I have absolutely no expertise in this.

just interesting to think about :)

moneromooo: I agree it's interesting.