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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Wcfi8-0000Lq-3x
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:46:28 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.178; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wcfi4-0001cg-Pl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:46:28 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id s7so4640079lbd.37
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.30.41 with SMTP id p9mr32267924lah.26.1398192378206;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F292CC2F-BAA7-45ED-801E-1475D94632AF@bitsofproof.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABh=4qNaJht-MnnjEguZ=UOuXN3uQ-s4-dkDUVErbHj6W44J_g@mail.gmail.com>
<1927948.OEZHQcsQ9n@crushinator> <2025496.b5Y3n7qx8B@crushinator>
<1582E990-4E14-4EF7-9C9C-AA505B815104@bitsofproof.com>
<53568B87.8040009@monetize.io>
<11528A13-5D66-4D2B-BEE0-1C26F9987BC8@bitsofproof.com>
<CABh=4qPsR1YbhJDeAPjr37Zjqawo9ZFAH43scFnEg7p9a7EkeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<F292CC2F-BAA7-45ED-801E-1475D94632AF@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:46:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR5ciUeFonOXBD1d9b_inOuxQKJ-LaoGmoyjoeQ_KxQxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Wcfi4-0001cg-Pl
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:46:28 -0000
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
> Yes, it is current norm. I am questioning if we should hang on to it in
> BIPs.
>
> I see testnet as a tool for a certain type of testing. Its existence is
> likely a consequence of Satoshi not writing unit tests and having automated
> integration tests, but creating a shadow chain to try things out, mostly
> manually.
Satoshi didn't create testnet. Testnet exists so you can do public
tests involving multiple people and services, so you can have shadow
versions of sites and services interacting with each other and trading
worthless tokens. Importantly, testnet also creates a public live fire
environment where grey hats can try out their attacks while minimizing
damage (and it's been very successful at this). Testnet is not an
alternative to the unit and integration tests that exist in Bitcoin
core but exists for more or less completely different reasons.
> Above leads me thinking that testnet is far less important than to be
> addressed in every future BIP.
Testnet is not normally addressed in BIPs at all, except for soft fork
bips that had compressed deployment schedules on testnet. For address
like specification we have always used a version byte and there is a
common encoding for version bytes that flags the network ID in the
byte.
|
