Can I turn off cut-through script?

Mining
1

Here is a simple question:Can I turn off the cut-through script?
I guess this function is default.

2

You can run your node in archival mode so that it won’t do cut-through.

Change:

archive_mode = false

to

archive_mode = true

in ~/.grin/main/grin-server.toml

1 Like
3

@kargakis thanks a lot!
I would try it
May I say that it is misunderstanding when lots of people said that cut-through can help gain privacy.
In fact, it only solve the problem about scalability and state generation.

4

It is somewhat misguiding when people say that. However, if the cut-through is done prior to the transaction being broadcasted (off-chain transactions), then it actually does increase privacy.

5

I think there’s also something about “the right to be forgotten”. As years pass by, less and less people are likely to have the information at all.

4 Likes
6

I agree with you ! It is important and need to be implemented in any privacy coin.

7

You mean the right to be remembered by those who run with archive mode? With no right to obtain this potentially valuable data (which could be used for your benefit or detriment) in a trustless and permissionless manner? Sounds like a horrible and unfair idea that creates a data disparity

8

Sounds like you are talking about your feature request of allowing a full archive node sync.
We discussed this on gitter I believe. And I think we determined it was definitely possible, assuming nodes opt-in to this. There would be no “right to obtain this data” as nodes would need to opt-in to offer to provide this data to you.

And I’m pretty sure there is no concept of a “right to be remembered” if others are doing the remembering.

A better approach for advocating for this feature would be to open an issue - Issues ¡ mimblewimble/grin ¡ GitHub.

I took a look in github and I don’t think you have opened an issue yet? Apologies if you have.

Sounds like a horrible and unfair idea

Replying to 6 month old forum posts like this does risk coming across as passive aggressive and could easily be misinterpreted. Particularly if you forget to mention other conversations that have taken place.

9

My point was that igno was horribly mistaken about the “right to be forgotten” which sounds like security via obscurity even though hash explicitly said that was never the intention. Between that and all council members initially being against the idea, it seemed relevant to comment on ignos sentiments once I came across the post. Sounds as if igno through the rest of the council default to supporting the “right to be remembered” in a manner that ensures a data disparity and I have every right to illuminate these sentiments on every medium, regardless of how you choose to interpret that. My apologies for failing to mention that 2, maybe 3 of you half way came around to the idea after an unexpectedly prolonged conversation. I understand that this feature request is not of high priority to the coding needs, but to me it’s high priority for the morals and standards that grin touts.

It also seems as if it would make more sense that archive nodes should have to opt-out of sharing rather than opt-in. As in only archive nodes not participating in outgoing communications should be able to avoid sharing their blocks. Maybe refusal to share archive blocks should result in protocol level blacklisting of the node and all archive syncs should be reconciled to the largest dataset so all archive nodes have the same data.

I’ll post a github issue now