FUD 4: "Gaps in Kaspa's ledger history imply security or transparency issues"

    Fact Sources:
    The False Claim: Missing ledger history data means the current state of Kaspa cannot be verified from genesis, potentially hiding a pre-mine or other malicious activities, thus compromising security and transparency.
    Fact 1:

    Ledger pruning is essential for Kaspa's long-term decentralization and sustainability. At full capacity (10 BPS), the ledger grows by approximately 30TB per year, making archival nodes impractical for widespread decentralization without pruning.

    Fact 2:

    The genesis block is hardcoded directly into the Kaspa node software. This hardcoded genesis block contains an empty UTXO set, verifiably demonstrating that there was no pre-mine.

    Fact 3:

    Kaspa nodes store a "proof-of-genesis." This cryptographic proof verifies that the current state of the ledger is derived from the hardcoded genesis block, without requiring the entire historical ledger data.

    Fact 4:

    Forging the proof-of-genesis would require computational work equivalent to creating the entire ledger history, ensuring its security and authenticity.

    Fact 5:

    The data available to each Kaspa node, including the proof-of-genesis, is sufficient to verify the current state back to genesis, ensuring transparency and security even without a complete historical ledger.

    Fact 6:

    Kaspa employs techniques to provide proof of chain integrity without the entire ledger history. For example, a chain of checkpoint blocks (growing by one header per day) can be verified all the way back to genesis.

    Fact 7:

    These checkpoint blocks, combined with UTXO commitments, cryptographically prove that the current state evolved from a genesis block with an empty UTXO set, thus demonstrating no pre-mine.

    Fact 8:

    The MLS protocol, relevant to Kaspa, uses a special type of Non-Interactive Proofs of Proof-of-Work (NiPoPoW) to succinctly prove chain weight, which inherently prohibits pre-mining attacks.

    Fact 9:

    The lack of archival nodes from the beginning was a matter of prioritization post-launch, not a security risk, as it was understood that ledger gaps do not compromise network integrity.

    Fact 10:

    This approach provides a security level comparable to Nakamoto Consensus, offering a robust chain integrity proof that is more practical than requiring a full "proof-of-history" (which is considered unreasonably stringent for scalability).