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
Precedence: list

--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--