MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158234619-439597ed4ddc4a9f90ea573513b5f5a3@pmq4v.m5r2.onet>
In-Reply-To: <158234619-439597ed4ddc4a9f90ea573513b5f5a3@pmq4v.m5r2.onet>
From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 16:19:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhj-GcyRbtXd3kWoy-xA8NsePTxRQsQ5fJf+-yjSaESA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000829acd05d97aff79"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] One testnet to rule them all
Precedence: list

--000000000000829acd05d97aff79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

There's no point to pegging coins that are worthless into a system of also
worthless coins, unless you want to test the mechanism of testing pegging.

As is, it's hard enough to get people set up on a signet, if they have to
run two nodes and then scramble to find testnet coins and then peg them
were just raising the barriers to entry for starting to use a signet for
testing.


If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that signet
is available.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 3:53 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> In testnet3, anyone can become a miner, it is possible to even mine a
> block on some CPU, because the difficulty can drop to one. In signet, we
> create some challenge, for example 1-of-2 multisig, that can restrict who
> can mine, so that chain can be "unreliably reliable". Then, my question is:
> why signets are introducing new coins out of thin air, instead of forming
> two-way peg-in between testnet3 and signet?
>
> The lack of coins is not a bug, it is a feature. We have more halvings in
> testnet3 than in mainnet or signets, but it can be good, we can use this to
> see, what can happen with a chain after many halvings. Also, in testnet3
> there is no need to have any coins if we are mining. Miners can create,
> move and destroy zero satoshis. They can also extend the precision of the
> coins, so a single coin in testnet3 can be represented as a thousand of
> coins in some signet sidechain.
>
> Recently, there are some discussions regarding sidechains. Before they
> will become a real thing, running on mainnet, they should be tested.
> Nowadays, a popular way of testing new features is creating a new signet
> with new rules. But the question still remains: why we need new coins,
> created out of thin air? And even when some signet wants to do that, then
> why it is not pegged into testnet3? Then it would have as much chainwork
> protection as testnet3!
>
> It seems that testnet3 is good enough to represent the main chain during
> sidechain testing. It is permissionless and open, anyone can start mining
> sidechain blocks, anyone with a CPU can be lucky and find a block with the
> minimal difficulty. Also, because of blockstorms and regular chain reorgs,
> some extreme scenarios, like stealing all coins from some sidechain, can be
> tested in a public way, because that "unfriendly and unstable" environment
> can be used to test stronger attacks than in a typical chain.
>
> Putting that proposal into practice can be simple and require just
> creating one Taproot address per signet in testnet3. Then, it is possible
> to create one testnet transaction (every three months) that would move
> coins to and from testnet3, so the same coins could travel between many
> signets. New signets can be pegged in with 1:1 ratio, existing signets can
> be transformed into signet sidechains (the signet miners rule that chains,
> so they can enforce any transition rules they need).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000829acd05d97aff79
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">There&#39;s no point to pegging coins that are worthless =
into a system of also worthless coins, unless you want to test the mechanis=
m of testing pegging.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">As is, i=
t&#39;s hard enough to get people set up on a signet, if they have to run t=
wo nodes and then scramble to find testnet coins and then peg them were jus=
t raising the barriers to entry for starting to use a signet for testing.</=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that signe=
t is available.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 3:53 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
">In testnet3, anyone can become a miner, it is possible to even mine a blo=
ck on some CPU, because the difficulty can drop to one. In signet, we creat=
e some challenge, for example 1-of-2 multisig, that can restrict who can mi=
ne, so that chain can be &quot;unreliably reliable&quot;. Then, my question=
 is: why signets are introducing new coins out of thin air, instead of form=
ing two-way peg-in between testnet3 and signet?<br>
<br>
The lack of coins is not a bug, it is a feature. We have more halvings in t=
estnet3 than in mainnet or signets, but it can be good, we can use this to =
see, what can happen with a chain after many halvings. Also, in testnet3 th=
ere is no need to have any coins if we are mining. Miners can create, move =
and destroy zero satoshis. They can also extend the precision of the coins,=
 so a single coin in testnet3 can be represented as a thousand of coins in =
some signet sidechain.<br>
<br>
Recently, there are some discussions regarding sidechains. Before they will=
 become a real thing, running on mainnet, they should be tested. Nowadays, =
a popular way of testing new features is creating a new signet with new rul=
es. But the question still remains: why we need new coins, created out of t=
hin air? And even when some signet wants to do that, then why it is not peg=
ged into testnet3? Then it would have as much chainwork protection as testn=
et3!<br>
<br>
It seems that testnet3 is good enough to represent the main chain during si=
dechain testing. It is permissionless and open, anyone can start mining sid=
echain blocks, anyone with a CPU can be lucky and find a block with the min=
imal difficulty. Also, because of blockstorms and regular chain reorgs, som=
e extreme scenarios, like stealing all coins from some sidechain, can be te=
sted in a public way, because that &quot;unfriendly and unstable&quot; envi=
ronment can be used to test stronger attacks than in a typical chain.<br>
<br>
Putting that proposal into practice can be simple and require just creating=
 one Taproot address per signet in testnet3. Then, it is possible to create=
 one testnet transaction (every three months) that would move coins to and =
from testnet3, so the same coins could travel between many signets. New sig=
nets can be pegged in with 1:1 ratio, existing signets can be transformed i=
nto signet sidechains (the signet miners rule that chains, so they can enfo=
rce any transition rules they need).<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000829acd05d97aff79--