See? I am not the only one, thinking in that way. And it should be quite obvious, if you note, that the chain is constantly growing, never shrinking, and it takes longer and longer, to verify it, so in the future, people will give up, and stop running full nodes at all, or start making more optimizations. Then, why Satoshi tested the system with settings, where for example once per four messages, things were randomly dropped? Also note, that sending unconfirmed transactions, or some recent transactions, is crucial, because it is needed to form next blocks. But when it comes to the historical transactions and blocks, then it is not that important. Otherwise, pruning wouldn't be possible at all. And it would nicely complete the step 7 from the whitepaper: "Reclaiming Disk Space". And also: Why the size of the block headers is counted, and nothing else? Isn't there an assumption, that only block headers will be kept for historical data? Also, things could be then more private, because the community only needs a proof, that all transactions and blocks are correct. However, if getting historical data would be slower, or more difficult than today, then it would protect the privacy of old users, at least to some extent.
See? I am not the only one, thinking in that way. And it should be quite obvious, if you note, that the chain is constantly growing, never shrinking, and it takes longer and longer, to verify it, so in the future, people will give up, and stop running full nodes at all, or start making more optimizations. Then, why Satoshi tested the system with settings, where for example once per four messages, things were randomly dropped? Also note, that sending unconfirmed transactions, or some recent transactions, is crucial, because it is needed to form next blocks. But when it comes to the historical transactions and blocks, then it is not that important. Otherwise, pruning wouldn't be possible at all. And it would nicely complete the step 7 from the whitepaper: "Reclaiming Disk Space". And also: Why the size of the block headers is counted, and nothing else? Isn't there an assumption, that only block headers will be kept for historical data? Also, things could be then more private, because the community only needs a proof, that all transactions and blocks are correct. However, if getting historical data would be slower, or more difficult than today, then it would protect the privacy of old users, at least to some extent.

See? I am not the only one, thinking in that way. And it should be quite obvious, if you note, that the chain is constantly growing, never shrinking, and it takes longer and longer, to verify it, so in the future, people will give up, and stop running full nodes at all, or start making more optimizations. Then, why Satoshi tested the system with settings, where for example once per four messages, things were randomly dropped? Also note, that sending unconfirmed transactions, or some recent transactions, is crucial, because it is needed to form next blocks. But when it comes to the historical transactions and blocks, then it is not that important. Otherwise, pruning wouldn't be possible at all. And it would nicely complete the step 7 from the whitepaper: "Reclaiming Disk Space". And also: Why the size of the block headers is counted, and nothing else? Isn't there an assumption, that only block headers will be kept for historical data? Also, things could be then more private, because the community only needs a proof, that all transactions and blocks are correct. However, if getting historical data would be slower, or more difficult than today, then it would protect the privacy of old users, at least to some extent.

See? I am not the only one, thinking in that way. And it should be quite obvious, if you note, that the chain is constantly growing, never shrinking, and it takes longer and longer, to verify it, so in the future, people will give up, and stop running full nodes at all, or start making more optimizations. Then, why Satoshi tested the system with settings, where for example once per four messages, things were randomly dropped? Also note, that sending unconfirmed transactions, or some recent transactions, is crucial, because it is needed to form next blocks. But when it comes to the historical transactions and blocks, then it is not that important. Otherwise, pruning wouldn't be possible at all. And it would nicely complete the step 7 from the whitepaper: "Reclaiming Disk Space". And also: Why the size of the block headers is counted, and nothing else? Isn't there an assumption, that only block headers will be kept for historical data? Also, things could be then more private, because the community only needs a proof, that all transactions and blocks are correct. However, if getting historical data would be slower, or more difficult than today, then it would protect the privacy of old users, at least to some extent.