Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:36:48 -0700 Received: from mail-yw1-f185.google.com ([209.85.128.185]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rsf43-0002Yr-Rw for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:36:48 -0700 Received: by mail-yw1-f185.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-60cc8d4e1a4sf33220547b3.3 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:36:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1712306201; x=1712911001; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1tvV39IlLtlpKPxmATqya88srzthCZHsIfhqCIcriRo=; b=D+SPvAkbWDlJRJiSXU40I/r81EsQifAz9vZFfqEPfcyCj9hCevyeEpscU91rGeftV9 DtXEuZUETPjDiyXEpc5SENlQg1pl0L03CzsfmOhETdfu2b2AfWyE94nz4Mzjs5BBokDn T24z1La5lCH/to4Oq8ZibepZPvHKosHfib3H53DltMWRbNm6k8lhZ2QY311S8Q3x+xe+ PWipntIYpCduRew7VrRiF+5+PZdN53r4pGZeLLuBTy6tZ4qNj6cy8O4r2EJnPZuDYVwo 2O8B6K0EAL0/5eRQKgR7QpwMWtWw7YPGRvkoMQ0KM1jNqdfeOjR7UE3A6x05fLkisah3 mgQQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712306201; x=1712911001; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1tvV39IlLtlpKPxmATqya88srzthCZHsIfhqCIcriRo=; b=l45pGig9UD30OLYYKlS8wOjuK45mvG1ZfqQwHKwPZh7l5QZ7yOktCqOKetaShftg+u SOZrkN7bgnHnJKZWPZH92TKFea7ijtQGmqqe/jDU9XRurdwGiRWjwJ8wV/txOVdkr6Dk twBltm/I6LlicG4rzNcH1W/8+LBKjtU75kRH3sz736ZipV/6TnlKUJ3sjZhZFF2YMaBE 0ulLaNp8CfzGs8FDHr4K7WNEFC8OKV9c2nmXVj0ej3RggQ+w1dAup67lFqmlsyPbZev4 B2S0yt2l5VhW26+luBde5Zv18ODHnOPcNqdsjG9y3xrYlNCM5X1Lsx0YrVRtXexyT2lA lscg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712306201; x=1712911001; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere :x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1tvV39IlLtlpKPxmATqya88srzthCZHsIfhqCIcriRo=; b=pgvBcBCjgyHr4JPkGq3uYLSBqvf7sXxI6P4m1hxVZhYQadZtKVbdNRRnRGO0b6lNmR cZStV8akiDCRP84oSd0LIIktA3RALRTG070bTf0asDuHuNhehOY6ycB18TLeclumhs7b wkKRNKWMn3aTOInjeRaLo6BadiCiEJu2x0YrC9km+YzepXCL5nWsLhJMHtBbPyfY5Aar xrTVS8YWRsUhAnwTFEo4a45CKPewyZ+hdSsZG6UIcpJBlGZVj8tzqC4n26R/I8DLU3sx 1nmHnBOmMjxEQEBhFMth2RNWWbBqgF4xlmzLp56a0ySR+2/dryjFefA4hMWEEn8BbxdA ZKIg== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX4TtRYxngc3Exue4w2+fFyXXIvIZLD2jouh+i6dBSqe52bS1CNXQ0q99o/CPb00kcvC76Fnt6DUSNOoIRjTQ5mrEif/ds= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyhfON+wvCBBm2DqDa/VS+nri7Y7o1Hlm+k+CVvz2X1/zJSRoBA OnMWKkVPLqAi71hCLVMQ/GS/8Pl6d4XwI3mjrvVDOMhVUPWq5b5s X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFktxvGm+SEZpiJYJ8qXsocvp5hm59x8IP5eJSsUCUOQBvPdL+GxQuUgDCw7Mc6AvnBhlVP9w== X-Received: by 2002:a5b:b52:0:b0:dcc:588f:1523 with SMTP id b18-20020a5b0b52000000b00dcc588f1523mr609867ybr.49.1712306200979; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:36:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a25:d6c4:0:b0:dc7:465d:fb81 with SMTP id n187-20020a25d6c4000000b00dc7465dfb81ls11606ybg.2.-pod-prod-09-us; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a25:d686:0:b0:dc7:9218:df47 with SMTP id n128-20020a25d686000000b00dc79218df47mr178151ybg.5.1712306199771; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:690c:dc2:b0:609:3e5d:63d0 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-617c7d6b8f4ms7b3; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:30:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1106:b0:dc6:e1ed:bd1a with SMTP id o6-20020a056902110600b00dc6e1edbd1amr81038ybu.2.1712291419601; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 21:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:30:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Calvin Kim To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <950b875a-e430-4bd8-870d-f9a9fab2493an@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: The Future of Bitcoin Testnet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_11572_1663469900.1712291419229" X-Original-Sender: ccychc@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) ------=_Part_11572_1663469900.1712291419229 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_11573_801642403.1712291419229" ------=_Part_11573_801642403.1712291419229 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok yeah seems bad enough. I support reseting testnet3. However, I'm more inclined towards keeping the rules the same. We already= =20 have the code for resetting the difficulty so any "fix" would be just=20 adding the burden of switching over to the new testnet for everyone. I=20 haven't seen anyone here mention a reason for the change besides the fact= =20 that resetting testnet would be a good time to implement the change. --- Calvin On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:02:15=E2=80=AFPM UTC+9 Jameson Lopp wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 4:29=E2=80=AFAM Calvin Kim wrot= e: > >> Throwing myself into the conversation because I think there's other devs= =20 >> that use testnet like I do. >> I mainly use testnet for checking if the utreexod implementation I'm=20 >> building runs into consensus >> bugs due to the havoc of how testnet creates bursts of blocks and how it= =20 >> reorganizes itself. I find >> the unpredictability a feature. >> >> > 1. Testnet3 has been running for 13 years. It's on block 2.5 million= =20 >> something and the block reward is down to ~0.014 TBTC, so mining is not= =20 >> doing a great job at distributing testnet coins any more. >> >> For my usage I never really see this as a problem since signet already= =20 >> provides that usecase. While >> I can empathize with devs struggling to get coins, there's always signet= =20 >> for the usecase of testing >> scripts/wallets. Signet doesn't really provide the same feature for my= =20 >> usecase.=20 >> >> > 2. The reason the block height is insanely high is due to a rather=20 >> amusing edge case bug that causes the difficulty to regularly get reset = to=20 >> 1, which causes a bit of havoc. If you want a deep dive into the quirk:= =20 >> https://blog.lopp.net/the-block-storms-of-bitcoins-testnet/ >> >> I stated this above but I find this as a feature. >> >> > 3. Testnet3 is being actively used for scammy airdrops; those of us wh= o=20 >> tend to be generous with our testnet coins are getting hounded by=20 >> non-developers chasing cheap gains. >> >> Could I get links/sources for this? I'm curious as to how big of a=20 >> problem this is. >> >> SatoshiVM airdrop: https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1753522413466464756 > > Not sure how to prove that I'm inundated with beggars; I've probably=20 > gotten 50 messages on a variety of platforms this year from non-developer= s=20 > asking for testnet coins. > > > 4. As a result, TBTC is being actively bought and sold; one could argue= =20 >> that the fundamental principle of testnet coins having no value has been= =20 >> broken. >> >> Same for this. Would appreciate links/evidence. >> >> > https://buytestnet.com/ > https://altquick.com/exchange/market/BitcoinTestnet > =20 > >> > 1. Should we plan for a reset of testnet? If so, given how long it has= =20 >> been since the last reset and how many production systems will need to b= e=20 >> updated, would a reset need to be done with a great deal of notice? >> >> I lean towards no unless the problem with testnet coins being valued is= =20 >> too significant. >> >> > 2. Is there interest in fixing the difficulty reset bug? It should be = a=20 >> one liner fix, and I'd argue it could be done sooner rather than later, = and=20 >> orthogonal to the network reset question. Would such a change, which wou= ld=20 >> technically be a hard fork (but also arguably a self resolving fork due = to=20 >> the difficulty dynamics) necessitate a BIP or could we just YOLO it? >> >> Again, I'd lean towards keeping it the same. >> >> > 3. Is all of the above a waste of time and we should instead deprecate= =20 >> testnet in favor of signet? >> >> No as signet doesn't have the features I find valuable in testnet. >> >> Best, >> Calvin >> >> --=20 >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 >> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n=20 >> email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit=20 >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/950b875a-e430-4bd8-870d-f9a= 9fab2493an%40googlegroups.com=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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/= bitcoindev/efa3e907-cd2b-4897-b476-8bbc6091a3edn%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_11573_801642403.1712291419229 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok yeah seems bad enough. I support reseting testnet3.

However, I'm more inclined towards keeping the rules the same. We already = have the code for resetting the difficulty so any "fix" would be just addin= g the burden of switching over to the new testnet for everyone. I haven't s= een anyone here mention a reason for the change besides the fact that reset= ting testnet would be a good time to implement the change.

=
--- Calvin
On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:02:15=E2=80=AFPM UTC+9 J= ameson Lopp wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 4:29=E2=80=AFAM Calvin Kim <ccy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Throwing myself into the= conversation because I think there's other devs that use testnet like = I do.
I mainly use testnet for checking if the utreexod implementation = I'm building runs into consensus
bugs due to the havoc of how= testnet creates bursts of blocks and how it reorganizes itself. I find
the unpredictability a feature.

> 1= . Testnet3 has been running for 13 years. It's on block 2.5 million som= ething and the block reward is down to ~0.014 TBTC, so mining is not doing = a great job at distributing testnet coins any more.

For my usage I never really see this as a problem since signet already pr= ovides that usecase. While
I can empathize with devs struggling t= o get coins, there's always signet for the usecase of testing
scripts/wallets. Signet doesn't really provide the same feature for my= usecase.=C2=A0

>=C2=A02. The reason the = block height is insanely high is due to a rather amusing edge case bug that= causes the difficulty to regularly get reset to 1, which causes a bit of h= avoc. If you want a deep dive into the quirk:=C2=A0https://blog.lopp.net/the-block-storms-of-bitcoins-testnet/

I stated this above but I find this as a feat= ure.

> 3. Testnet3 is being actively used for s= cammy airdrops; those of us who tend to be generous with our testnet coins = are getting hounded by non-developers chasing cheap gains.
Could I get links/sources for this? I'm curious as to how = big of a problem this is.


Not sure how to prove that I'm inundated with beggars; I've = probably gotten 50 messages on a variety of platforms this year from non-de= velopers asking for testnet coins.

> 4. As a result, TBTC is being actively= bought and sold; one could argue that the fundamental principle of testnet= =C2=A0coins having no value has been broken.

S= ame for this. Would appreciate links/evidence.


https://altquick.com/exchange/market/BitcoinTestnet
=C2=A0<= /div>
<= /div>
> 1. Should we plan fo= r a reset of testnet? If so, given how long it has been since the last rese= t and how many production systems will need to be updated, would a reset ne= ed to be done with a great deal of notice?

I lean = towards no unless the problem with testnet coins being valued is too signif= icant.

> 2. Is there interest in fixing the dif= ficulty reset bug? It should be a one liner fix, and I'd argue it could= be done sooner rather than later, and orthogonal to the network reset ques= tion. Would such a change, which would technically be a hard fork (but also= arguably a self resolving fork due to the difficulty dynamics) necessitate= a BIP or could we just YOLO it?

Again, I'd le= an towards keeping it the same.

> 3. Is all of = the above a waste of time and we should instead deprecate testnet in favor = of signet?

No as signet doesn't have the= features I find valuable in testnet.

Best,
Calvin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+...@googlegro= ups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg= id/bitcoindev/efa3e907-cd2b-4897-b476-8bbc6091a3edn%40googlegroups.com.=
------=_Part_11573_801642403.1712291419229-- ------=_Part_11572_1663469900.1712291419229--