Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD1E7F for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:58:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D23EE5 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so82026244lag.3 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=f+kYvaW7/3tmvf40kEGTPbwIO8pcDD3mwcf/LVBKcfM=; b=XgicJG9/rXwSA7tdSnVlAYUdt8EA9zCHARLzdwVh3kGn7b25uX4CFIvjOIGiVqID3z wx9gISuZppBFXnAdL63Of41NgLpYsMRH5CM5wfDZ8ia/lKjDRS5L0JN3Q5nEvfvnTiGW TTSYds+1nWED3/i1Um3FaAZfHl9GCt/ZlG6fZjYDZSUMZVATUWBIaGA3w/GKAg+4yFRw CRQFKL0gf4z0h7FQiWppV/kRCwSigk+i71Xf/A+IaUOCB0bdso/nQeGnXhT88c6i76V6 BDFO3yFQhmA+0Ct5U2l0d8ACP1kOZk7LWw3qJeChPRM6SephtWBsBlgipffnOSMVhGMB azVg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWBzfb88W9nGKCA38lYUBP0Sgr0BJdvQf+W2b9aN7abl4HFF6oLnBnT6moQhNyf7DZVBaw MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.151.178 with SMTP id ur18mr1685252lbb.59.1439827099028; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55890C4C.3070909@jrn.me.uk> References: <20150622192308.GA23545@savin.petertodd.org> <55890C4C.3070909@jrn.me.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:58:18 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Ross Nicoll Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:58:21 -0000 On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Ross Nicoll wrote: > I don't think essentially replacing most of Testnet with a specialised test > chain is a good idea, but this might be a good time to consider a 4th test > network with very large blocks from genesis onwards. You may be interested in this patch/PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 Why only one more testchain when you can add std::numeric_limits::max() new testchains with approximately the same code?