Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE3AC000B for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:58:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCE24023B for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:58:53 +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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hyv4_8o7dS-n for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:58:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3F0400C6 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:58:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id bn33so1489848ljb.6 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:58:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uBjLi+CZDI+Q0fejISUuzpp7DPOXOqXth5pT9PH+4cU=; b=BONFf4YGx3gYx/Varwrip2eNHHKSphFIegDaojo2T3m1WvBBdB8LBsuZFuPY0RBDeY g66uOPkVNmOmDpw3/JFbEBHicgUCSpDUoCaEeMW3fwGZMgCKzml64XtrDY0sajK9u+AR 1stAJU6UR5G3dDdp1PNsWvKBFBy93uS0SMnQ66OHMe8AKFRFzkUJ/hh4jk5baWLgs76n nuDAahPysC4KcJwPlcgadCaV1FSwOD/HFIauNchmQ2ETUctBdS2OsquqPlcefv4wra0H R8z704hby/HDeeVkwVNXBzQ7afythzQxL9T1Yvc6fbgs+A41oQF6YDmyzrFtSzJLi6Tl ibmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uBjLi+CZDI+Q0fejISUuzpp7DPOXOqXth5pT9PH+4cU=; b=mt1bt2Lyv4lZo17NsZD4w0+hyQy8C7s8r9tdCToQqARuWFc/WskcNYrXezF5Si/tH/ lrA3Bme4L6mJ3p+Qv++JiKt37vAwUXBsB2vgMpeWf8Bd8VHtJw8wifQUJARkJttPrW91 OP5bbENs2P1wyl3JtoC/IfrcyqQTI0uF7+gsG1kbRXbWxnqaMOuz6zviVcvsnGmO7w0b ZZWVUhSIRN2N9EbsoscQBVUDywDKxz2HOgpdo9RPHpcL0hAZH31yngXb5JD1aoCHNdk9 ZNIxpUGNQPOVyFSv/HHyjT3t90HdillNFdVZ4p7w54QpjVGwOHzBloM00t/rog6lGfy5 t8Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JRDMk4LSpOo9uCoKNkoJGhOr6M9smiq/UU4rGLbv7S0ywytEH JmNAVukvMa28oPSEieayNeAh1rDlP5SzTPs5wyq168e4yw9hzg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlX1skYpRPxoQx+jpDIDtgxunjLApRAtJBba25uEYmTZ2A3xOfnFEdgepk5BSxkBDjTHjDGF9CE4mSoluavrU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6804:0:b0:245:f269:618 with SMTP id c4-20020a2e6804000000b00245f2690618mr3595961lja.198.1645135129423; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:58:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:58:38 -0800 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin development mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ff34ad05d83dded2" Subject: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:58:53 -0000 --000000000000ff34ad05d83dded2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi devs, I have been running a CTV signet for around a year and it's seen little use. Early on I had some issues syncing new nodes, but I have verified syncability to this signet using https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/checktemplateverify-signet-23.0-alpha. Please use this signet! ``` [signet] signetchallenge=512102946e8ba8eca597194e7ed90377d9bbebc5d17a9609ab3e35e706612ee882759351ae addnode=50.18.75.225 ``` This should be operational. Let me know if there are any issues you experience (likely with signet itself, but CTV too). Feel free to also email me an address and I can send you some signet coins -- if anyone is interested in running an automatic faucet I would love help with that and will send you a lot of coins. AJ Wrote (in another thread): > I'd much rather see some real > third-party experimentation *somewhere* public first, and Jeremy's CTV > signet being completely empty seems like a bad sign to me. Maybe that > means we should tentatively merge the feature and deploy it on the > default global signet though? Not really sure how best to get more > real world testing; but "deploy first, test later" doesn't sit right. I agree that real experimentation would be great, and think that merging the code (w/o activation) for signet would likely help users v.s. custom builds/parameters. I am unsure that "learning in public" is required -- personally I do experiments on regtest regularly and on mainnet (using emulators) more occasionally. I think some of the difficulty is that for setting up signet stuff you need to wait e.g. 10 minutes for blocks and stuff, source faucet coins, etc. V.s. regtest you can make tests that run automatically. Maybe seeing more regtest RPC test samples for regtests would be a sufficient in-between? Best, Jeremy -- @JeremyRubin --000000000000ff34ad05d83dded2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi devs,

I have be= en running a CTV signet for around a year and it's seen little use. Ear= ly on I had some issues syncing new nodes, but I have verified syncability = to this signet using https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitc= oin/tree/checktemplateverify-signet-23.0-alpha. Please use this signet!=

```
[signet]
signetchallen= ge=3D512102946e8ba8eca597194e7ed90377d9bbebc5d17a9609ab3e35e706612ee8827593= 51ae
addnode=3D50.18.75.225
```

This should be operational. Le= t me know if there are any issues you experience (likely with signet itself= , but CTV too).

Feel free to also email me an address and I can s= end you some signet coins -- if anyone is interested in running an automati= c faucet I would love help with that and will send you a lot of coins.

AJ Wrote (in another thread):

<= /div>
> =C2=A0I'd much rather see so= me real
>=C2=A0 = =C2=A0third-party experimentation *somewhere* public first, and Jeremy'= s CTV
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0signe= t being completely empty seems like a bad sign to me. Maybe that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0means we should tenta= tively merge the feature and deploy it on the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0default global signet though?=C2=A0 Not = really sure how best to get more
&g= t;=C2=A0 =C2=A0real world testing; but "deploy first, test late= r" doesn't sit right.

I agree that real experimentation would be great, and think that= merging the code (w/o activation) for signet would likely help users v.s. = custom builds/parameters.

I am unsure that "learning in pu= blic" is required -- personally I do experiments on regtest regularly = and on mainnet (using emulators) more occasionally. I think some of the dif= ficulty is that for setting up signet stuff you need to wait e.g. 10 minute= s for blocks and stuff, source faucet coins, etc. V.s. regtest you can make= tests that run automatically. Maybe seeing more regtest RPC test samples f= or regtests would be a sufficient in-between?


Best,

Jeremy<= /div>
--000000000000ff34ad05d83dded2--