Delivery-date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 07:15:35 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of pithosian@i2pmail.org designates 91.143.83.7 as permitted sender) client-ip=91.143.83.7;
From: pithosian <pithosian@i2pmail.org>
To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Unbreaking testnet4
In-Reply-To: <20250428110655.D4A1C7C0AE9@smtp.postman.i2p>
References: <hU75DurC5XToqizyA-vOKmVtmzd3uZGDKOyXuE_ogE6eQ8tPCrvX__S08fG_nrW5CjH6IUx7EPrq8KwM5KFy9ltbFBJZQCHR2ThoimRbMqU=@protonmail.com>
	<5c13e130-aaa2-4866-be26-7498100e868b@murch.one>
	<7c6800f0-7b77-4aca-a4f9-2506a2410b29@murch.one>
	<vgcVopNpWCowIGaIpVgjsCWyTMjxVKoWtRdDVnTNrM8tYPjKtC6MJ6S-2KxIYdJYgAhG8iNPig-xijwd7DtAm6tHN3T3xgIMUNUSTBYvT_A=@protonmail.com>
	<672cb527-9005-46fc-be2c-4508d39cfd7dn@googlegroups.com>
	<CADL_X_eXcmD8fEpL9Sqqwt6EfwtdjG+Aaqk+pgSBhPmaVT3gEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACgYNOKDFjxTuk8Szq305oNvS_tAwoCosrcR3ij4ihCuHjw78A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20250428110655.D4A1C7C0AE9@smtp.postman.i2p>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20250428114858.46B477C1126@smtp.postman.i2p>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:48:58 +0000 (UTC)
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 22:54:54 +0000 (UTC)
Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd suggest simply disabling the halving logic and making it a
> perpetual 50 TBTC issuance. At that rate, it would still take ~8
> years or so to surpass the 21M limit and I'd think that testnets
> should be reset more frequently than that.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:06:55 +0000 (UTC)
Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Encoding an "end of life date" into testnets is actually an
> interesting idea worth discussing. As far as I'm aware it's never
> been done before on any network.
What about having the halving act as a reset? Eg: don't reduce the
mining reward AND disallow spends of UTXOs from before the last halving.

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:11=E2=80=AFAM Saint Wenhao <saintwenhao@gmail.c=
om>
> wrote:
>=20
> > > Demurrage might be asking a bit much in terms of deviation.
> >
> > If that's the case, then why signing all blocks in signet is not
> > "too much"?
> >
>=20
> Because signet isn't testnet? It gives up permissionless block
> creation in return for predictability.
>=20
>=20
> > Or why unlimited supply is not "too much"?
> >
>=20
> It might be, but it might not be, given that the point of testnet is
> for coins to be free for developers to acquire and use without fear of
> financial loss. Thus scarcity isn't really an inviolable property of
> testnet.
>=20
>=20
> > All of these changes were put in the same basket of "Require
> > unanimous consent", so why one kind of change is better or worse
> > than the others? All of them deviates from the mainnet, and we
> > probably wouldn't want anything like that on the original chain
> > anyway.
> >
> > > I'd think that testnets should be reset more frequently than that.
> >
> > Then why don't we put any kind of reset logic into testnet5
> > consensus rules? Because when nothing like that is present, then
> > testnets can potentially run forever. Testnet3 is becoming an
> > altcoin, and new testnets will also be, if no significant changes
> > will be made. Signet is not traded yet, mainly because of
> > centralized mining, but there already are centralized altcoin
> > federations, so it may change in the future.
> >
> >
> Encoding an "end of life date" into testnets is actually an
> interesting idea worth discussing. As far as I'm aware it's never
> been done before on any network.
>=20
> And again, the word "reset" should be replaced by "abandon", unless
> you
> > really want to reorganize the whole old chain of some existing
> > testnet, by producing a stronger alternative chain in testnet5,
> > which would replace the old network in a backward-compatible way,
> > by mining everything on top of the same Genesis Block, and
> > eventually producing a bigger chainwork.
> >
> > pon., 28 kwi 2025 o 00:50 Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
> > napisa=C5=82(a):
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 12:47=E2=80=AFPM Saint Wenhao
> >> <saintwenhao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What about introducing demurrage in testnet5 consensus rules?
> >>>
> >> In general it seems desirable for a testnet to be as close as
> >> possible to mainnet's rules. Demurrage might be asking a bit much
> >> in terms of deviation.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest simply disabling the halving logic and making it a
> >> perpetual 50 TBTC issuance. At that rate, it would still take ~8
> >> years or so to surpass the 21M limit and I'd think that testnets
> >> should be reset more frequently than that.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Testnet coins were supposed to be worthless. But it failed in both
> >>> testnet3 and testnet4. In the meanwhile, signet was introduced,
> >>> to make a more stable test network. However, signing blocks was
> >>> listed on wiki page https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes
> >>> as something, that "Require unanimous consent". And, as the
> >>> history can tell us, people still wanted to test mining anyway,
> >>> which is why testnet3 and testnet4 have much more chainwork than
> >>> signet (and when it comes to signet, sending signed-but-unmined
> >>> blocks to the miners was never implemented, so they had no chance
> >>> to provide more hashing power).
> >>>
> >>> Another kind of change on the list, that would require consent,
> >>> was increasing the total number of coins beyond 21 million. But
> >>> then, testing supply limits would be harder, and it could cause
> >>> integer overflows in some cases. But: in all test networks,
> >>> including testnet3, testnet4, and signet, there was never a
> >>> problem of "not enough coins for miners", so that change probably
> >>> wouldn't solve any problems (and seeing it in action would take
> >>> years anyway; testnet4 is still far from the first halving, and
> >>> it is traded anyway, so that change won't fix it).
> >>>
> >>> Then, we have the third option, which was not yet tried in test
> >>> networks: demurrage. There are two main options: burning coins, or
> >>> re-assigning them to someone else. To make a soft-fork out of it,
> >>> re-assigning would be backward-incompatible, so it is probably
> >>> easier to just implement burning, and just treat all coins older
> >>> than N blocks in the same way, as OP_RETURN, by simply
> >>> invalidating transactions spending them on consensus level.
> >>>
> >>> Also, when it comes to maintaining testnet nodes, if it would be
> >>> possible to automatically remove things from the UTXO set, then
> >>> it would make Initial Blockchain Download easier, just because
> >>> new nodes wouldn't need to synchronize everything, if old coins
> >>> would be automatically invalidated. In practice, all nodes could
> >>> be just running in pruned mode all the time, and everything
> >>> beyond the pruning point, could be simply ignored on consensus
> >>> level (which would also prevent the UTXO set from exploding). And
> >>> then, if we would keep for example the last 2,016 blocks, then
> >>> the whole chain would never take more than 2016 * 4 MB =3D 8.064 GB
> >>> of storage, and that's all we would need to send during Initial
> >>> Blockchain Download to other nodes.
> >>>
> >>> poniedzia=C5=82ek, 31 marca 2025 o 22:50:27 UTC+2 Antoine Poinsot
> >>> napisa=C5=82(a):
> >>>
> >>>> Good point on not having the flag day on a holiday. One or two
> >>>> weeks sounds good to me.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Monday, March 24th, 2025 at 8:25 AM, Murch <mu...@murch.one>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Errr, I wrote the same date as you, but I meant a week later,
> >>>> 2026-01-08
> >>>> > instead.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > -Murch
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On 2025-03-21 14:20, Murch wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > Hey Antoine and everyone,
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > What you suggest makes sense to me. Since the 20-minute
> >>>> > > difficulty exception is now exploited perpetually, it
> >>>> > > doesn=E2=80=99t serve its
> >>>> intended
> >>>> > > purpose of allowing developers to mine themselves a few coins
> >>>> easily or
> >>>> > > confirm their own non-standard transactions. In that case,
> >>>> > > it would
> >>>> be
> >>>> > > better to not have it at all.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > On 2025-03-18 07:29, 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin
> >>>> > > Development
> >>>> Mailing
> >>>> > > List wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > I propose to fix this by removing the difficulty reset
> >>>> > > > rule from testnet4 through a flag day hard fork on
> >>>> > > > 2026-01-01.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > I would suggest to pick a date that=E2=80=99s not a holiday in m=
any
> >>>> > > places
> >>>> to
> >>>> > > avoid disrupting people=E2=80=99s holiday, how about 2026-01-01
> >>>> > > instead?
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Cheers,
> >>>> > > Murch
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >>>> > Google
> >>>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> >>>> > it,
> >>>> send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> > To view this discussion visit
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/7c6800f0-7b77-4aca-a4f9=
-2506a2410b29%40murch.one.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >>> send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To view this discussion visit
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/672cb527-9005-46fc-be2c-=
4508d39cfd7dn%40googlegroups.com
> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/672cb527-9005-46fc-be2c=
-4508d39cfd7dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>
>=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
20250428114858.46B477C1126%40smtp.postman.i2p.