MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABuOfuh7M6siJW1FzXajsBSeYSu=TBEgx9SAmCbwnP=yb7rJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180830200239.ujuzh7pitcuatdt3@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180830200239.ujuzh7pitcuatdt3@petertodd.org>
From: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:36:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJR7vkqt0x6KamB5Bx_bC6Zu0oxJYHHNYHS9i4q4q3++iHRz2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: pete@petertodd.org, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ef4720574ad0709"
Cc: shiva sitamraju <shiva@blockonomics.co>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testnet3 Reest
Precedence: list

--0000000000009ef4720574ad0709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Stupid question time:

Why don't we have multiple testnets?

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:31 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:58:42PM +0530, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Testnet is now 1411795 blocks and a full sync is taking atleast 48 hours.
> >
> > Is a testnet reset scheduled in the next release or any reason not to do
> a
> > reset ?
> >
> > Fast onboarding/lower disk overheads would be  very much appreicated for
> > testing purposes
>
> Actually I'd advocate the opposite: I'd want testnet to be a *larger*
> blockchain than mainnet to find size-related issues first.
>
> Note that for testing regtest is often a better alternative, and you can
> setup
> private regtest blockchains fairly easily and with good control over
> exactly
> when and how blocks are created.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--0000000000009ef4720574ad0709
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Stupid question time:<div><br></div><div>Why don&#39;t we =
have multiple testnets?</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"ltr">On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:31 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org</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">On =
Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:58:42PM +0530, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev wrot=
e:<br>
&gt; Hi,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Testnet is now 1411795 blocks and a full sync is taking atleast 48 hou=
rs.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Is a testnet reset scheduled in the next release or any reason not to =
do a<br>
&gt; reset ?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Fast onboarding/lower disk overheads would be=C2=A0 very much appreica=
ted for<br>
&gt; testing purposes<br>
<br>
Actually I&#39;d advocate the opposite: I&#39;d want testnet to be a *large=
r*<br>
blockchain than mainnet to find size-related issues first.<br>
<br>
Note that for testing regtest is often a better alternative, and you can se=
tup<br>
private regtest blockchains fairly easily and with good control over exactl=
y<br>
when and how blocks are created.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://petertodd.org</a> &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000009ef4720574ad0709--