Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:47:53 +0000
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
Cc: shiva sitamraju <shiva@blockonomics.co>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testnet3 Reest
Precedence: list

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