You are incorrect about the computer science of how a Kaspa node actually handles state transitions and verifies data. You are arguing against a "strawman" version of how a pruned node operates. You think a UTXO snapshot is just an unverified text file handed to you by an archival node, and you just blindly cross your fingers and accept it because it has a high Proof-of-Work score. The UTXO snapshot is not just "timestamped in the DAG", it is cryptographically bound to the BlockDAG’s virtual state. When a Kaspa node syncs, it downloads a Pruning Point Proof. This is a compact cryptographic proof. This proof mathematically demonstrates that the block header containing the hash of that UTXO set sits at the tip of an unbroken, valid chain of accumulated work leading directly back to Genesis. The node does verify the math: it verifies that creating this exact snapshot would require an attacker to expend more thermodynamic energy than the entire honest Kaspa network has produced since inception. You assume that because you aren't checking a transaction from two years ago, a miner could have sneaked an invalid transaction into the past and ruined the current state without you knowing. This completely ignores how a UTXO ledger works. You cannot "build" a valid modern block on top of an invalid historical transaction because invalid transactions destroy the mathematical continuity of the UTXO set. If a miner in 2024 tried to create fake coins out of thin air, that block would be rejected by every node online at that moment. If an archival node tried to alter the historical database to include that fake transaction and feed it to a syncing node today, the resulting UTXO Merkle root hash would change. The new node would compare the hash of the dirty UTXO set to the mathematically proven headers and say, "The hashes do not match. This snapshot is fraudulent." You don't need to read a 3-year-old receipt to know the state is valid. Yes, you pick what has the most Proof-of-Work. That is literally Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism. Nakamoto Consensus states that the valid chain is the one with the most accumulated energy. You're acting as though Bitcoin full nodes don't rely on PoW to determine the valid chain. If a Bitcoin node is presented with two chains that both follow the software rules, it always chooses the one with the most PoW. PoW is the ultimate arbiter of truth in both systems. If an attacker had the computational power to rewrite Kaspa’s history, falsify a Pruning Point Proof, forge the cumulative PoW of the global network, and trick a syncing node into accepting a fake UTXO set, they would also have the exact same power that's needed to 51% attack. You keep calling it an SPV wallet. An SPV wallet downloads headers and assumes the transactions inside are valid without checking the rules. A Kaspa pruned node downloads a cryptographically secured state and fully validates every live transaction against the rules. Bitcoin maxis have a quasi-religious belief that if a node doesn't store a record of a meme inscribed on a block from three years ago, it isn't secure. Kaspa uses math and the laws of thermodynamics to prove that the current state is valid, throwing away the historical bloat so the base layer can actually scale. You aren't arguing against a security flaw, you're just arguing against a different design philosophy Respectfully, you are claiming things that are not real, to be real.