1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Return-Path: <rhavar@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE400DBB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 1 Sep 2018 14:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD32CA8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 1 Sep 2018 14:48:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:47:53 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1535813277;
bh=CbtWtg7J8FcwPYw3uUuNhmP9lDTpvaY4hoju9x4QqE0=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=CLFF7mU4cWaHQhr5lyDQzgw7eHXnNOv76/V+of5yBjW6CYAak4QwuNXlQbsBr78HZ
NlmV650h0UbzzH58Gm7mGno9pmcYxcwARQFpmj0wMrZnJtpY5ozlxiaePhRa4z9DsM
/QhWj/fNxfBbS0CVrXOo2rWxM0SLeJhHw/qkDZ84=
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: rhavar@protonmail.com
Reply-To: rhavar@protonmail.com
Message-ID: <nSgDJydDNqQwbRrVzhJ7PsRHnVr2eqXTA8I2X4p-Wm16M4TW4PCSPU20q9nUrO-2Hm8WODFILJqb7drIaY74wSnCQ3cAcDvqfHZ7b_mOM6w=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSF=hx581aGUBVv6zardKG4gex43B-jZbAu0a9Rupg1WQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABuOfuh7M6siJW1FzXajsBSeYSu=TBEgx9SAmCbwnP=yb7rJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20180830200239.ujuzh7pitcuatdt3@petertodd.org>
<7E247E56-38A5-4B99-941A-A2CC837D2567@xbt.hk>
<CAAS2fgSF=hx581aGUBVv6zardKG4gex43B-jZbAu0a9Rupg1WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: RdfuD--Ffc-FNb_4UIG1XA3s5stj1f6Yt84KENdha_3WoiW3STYpu7X5uGR72LvTfQZpxEhSRHGSlNfV5XM5RA==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 23:25:52 +0000
Cc: shiva sitamraju <shiva@blockonomics.co>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testnet3 Reest
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:48:03 -0000
I think I mentioned it before, but seems semi-relevant to this thread so I'=
d like to throw my vote behind pretty tiny blocks on testnet (like max 50-1=
00k weight) to try help simulate a fee-market like situation.
(Although lately there's been a lot of testnet spam and full blocks, which =
has really made testing easier. But I don't know how long this situation wi=
ll last)
-Ryan
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On August 30, 2018 7:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > A public testnet is still useful so in articles people could make refer=
ences to these transactions.
> > Maybe we could have 2 testnets at the same time, with one having a smal=
ler block size?
>
> I would much rather have a signed blocks testnet, with a predictable
> structured reorg pattern* (and a config flag so you can make your node
> ignore all blocks that are going to get reorged out in a reorg of nth
> or larger). There are many applications where the mined testnet just
> doesn't give you anything useful... it's too stable when you want it
> to be a bit unstable and too wildly unstable when you want a bit of
> stability-- e.g. there are very few test cases where a 20,000 block
> reorg does anything useful for you; yet they happen on testnet.
>
> We looked at doing this previously in Bitcoin core and jtimon had some
> patches, but the existing approach increased the size of the
> blockindex objects in memory while not in signed testnet mode. This
> could probably have been fixed by turning one of the fields like the
> merkel root into a union of it's normal value and a pointer a
> look-aside block index that is used only in signed block testnet mode.
>
> Obviously such a mode wouldn't be a replacement for an ordinary
> testnet, but it would be a useful middle ground between regtest (that
> never sees anything remotely surprising and can't easily be used for
> collaborative testing) and full on testnet where your attempts to test
> against ordinary noise require you cope your entirely universe being
> removed from existence and replaced by something almost but not quite
> entirely different at the whim of some cthulhuian blind idiot god.
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
