summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/8f/a60eae3350bdcd9485b32005b757d6f132a8c2
blob: 1a7ef53249057669112f58d67c6f487123a0c03c (plain)
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
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
Return-Path: <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14312C000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  5 Mar 2022 23:40:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A04381450
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  5 Mar 2022 23:40:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id qYiTGT8BFcWy
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  5 Mar 2022 23:40:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF00881449
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  5 Mar 2022 23:40:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id bn33so15634388ljb.6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 05 Mar 2022 15:40:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=dXpP9xl+jJoVCZ+Rhu3K4tdmD8lueARhMEjZaZQM8Tk=;
 b=GQgo9yhQUYY2Mgpgu2qnzs/NmkclvEAXIHwabnXSR9kmnCnV/iUz+K/ov0BN9qt4Rh
 dBRdgSEx00vwo9RyDXf8TjmUzBqCWcKnlBXWZJ96mGBRJ5MMn6OfMAfEdVsMf7eUQceY
 NYc/jxK14/JGoGNvF7z+VV26ep3KmjOEQLFqrgEjWYGyn66i9jxy3hQ2FKPJIp2jfdfu
 nYgFv9IyTCmTQ1R6px9+M+o+wmac+XHFhoGsqEOlUsq+JalDmhV8eIWltoW9P3fM5ni3
 UNG6t/3wC0zghObklUu2zEOuuinosV+BWCRIdJbJAx6seEq42qrD9h55JxuDg7227TjM
 h7oQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=dXpP9xl+jJoVCZ+Rhu3K4tdmD8lueARhMEjZaZQM8Tk=;
 b=x073OYvBdA/21TYq4I0YaH300KJcRkMEvu16BAygebbuFBMdMdLLQ5aRzwoy6iExoE
 k4GecQQKIreWlFp6esY/zDOkdlMyDs4VOyxA452eAvWlD8O33RMU3ktYQFq9HXmGfPdY
 9KFKQD+IldQ5/wKg/R0cduZxA60LxtZwNOg6s7Eu5cr3++1wdWzYELsbqT5kyES2W574
 0KNVdDzeVqFD5Yh3xxyNC7U8RMQE8Uk06xW23WG+NsINw4OR2pGROZkWrJmr2BAeGENt
 qfHMd6lu1GHMeNmpA5IvJgMAWg2hpZse+iRSj6Vw/YnpybCYtXoaWVF9IE9S5WWwfG6f
 XJKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530b1DjYWJf2O6R+HvM7qs3pKdW2OqZ5q672z1NfQyfCGcXmPxbS
 kC8sS+HxkyKWFufaM92lJlh36yv2nZ8rJMFWlOY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBJ9DILsaor7GhF56zFByymhxP+sbVo9VU1jXpFvUBUKEHImgtDJPtqg6dZg6c/5V4xzxWsATHOtd1fUc11O4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b16e:0:b0:23b:92f0:9191 with SMTP id
 a14-20020a2eb16e000000b0023b92f09191mr3074508ljm.57.1646523623517; Sat, 05
 Mar 2022 15:40:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD5xwhj-GcyRbtXd3kWoy-xA8NsePTxRQsQ5fJf+-yjSaESA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <157830221-11b5cb76ed5c332d9b27cdd734c5f3b1@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
In-Reply-To: <157830221-11b5cb76ed5c332d9b27cdd734c5f3b1@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:40:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhghrFtziT+WXOcJs_60pSEqksGiq4Wd2EuP7-SxYsH6qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] One testnet to rule them all
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 05 Mar 2022 23:40:27 -0000

--000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Signet degrades to a testnet if you make your key OP_TRUE.


It's not about needing 21M coins it's about easily getting access to said
coins for testing, where it's kinda tricky to get testnet coins.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 6:17 PM <vjudeu@gazeta.pl> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> But testing pegging is what is needed if we ever want to introduce
> sidechains. On the other hand, even if we don't want sidechains, then the
> question still remains: why we need more than 21 million coins for testing,
> if we don't need more than 21 million coins for real transactions?
>
> > If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that
> signet is available.
>
> Then, in that case, the "mainchain" can be our official signet and other
> signets can be pegged into that. Also, testnet3 is permissionless, so how
> signet can replace that? Because if you want to test mining and you cannot
> mine any blocks in signet, then it is another problem.
>
> On 2022-03-05 17:19:40 user Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>

--000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Signet degrades to a testnet if you make your key OP_TRUE=
.=C2=A0<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">It&#39;s not about needing 21M coins it&#39;s about easily getting ac=
cess to said coins for testing, where it&#39;s kinda tricky to get testnet =
coins.=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" cla=
ss=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 6:17 PM  &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:vjude=
u@gazeta.pl">vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex">&gt; There&#39;s no point to pegging coins that are worthless int=
o a system of also worthless coins, unless you want to test the mechanism o=
f testing pegging.<br>
<br>
But testing pegging is what is needed if we ever want to introduce sidechai=
ns. On the other hand, even if we don&#39;t want sidechains, then the quest=
ion still remains: why we need more than 21 million coins for testing, if w=
e don&#39;t need more than 21 million coins for real transactions?<br>
<br>
&gt; If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that sig=
net is available.<br>
<br>
Then, in that case, the &quot;mainchain&quot; can be our official signet an=
d other signets can be pegged into that. Also, testnet3 is permissionless, =
so how signet can replace that? Because if you want to test mining and you =
cannot mine any blocks in signet, then it is another problem.<br>
<br>
On 2022-03-05 17:19:40 user Jeremy Rubin &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jeremy.l.rub=
in@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com=
</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
There&#39;s no point to pegging coins that are worthless into a system of a=
lso worthless coins, unless you want to test the mechanism of testing peggi=
ng.<br>
<br>
<br>
As is, it&#39;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 te=
sting.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that signet i=
s available.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 3:53 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
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 &quot;unreliably reliable&quot;. Then, my question i=
s: why signets are introducing new coins out of thin air, instead of formin=
g 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>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb--