Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A294FD30 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:36:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1191A7D1 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id f21-v6so3209476wmc.5 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:36:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=l/+tryFqiK1tMJF+vXYM3NhXiJob19f7oEf3ljJ4qp8=; b=NGK264p2o6g6qHoArOA+7SQ72mo87WT1Uc+MVPdMlreOkUQIq8Cj+CqA2wpyk/VcPV sGofDRcMGKnX1HxronPbW3LsbRjsuBaTcJtf2qdLPRr7sFS15wJ3tBSxAaFsHt7TpKkD EJEtdAXyGMJdHqrsK23TaRNWM5+0M3KKNCya8GyiijykSFVWUTro3rg9L8OSEnumFzTI JfCZHBfx0aVwKA2M8URrZ6h1VgN92tCMXUnsmD37IFsUNeEJaiE9kXJtyTljZ7V2WX+X lzubOcjDX+w+fu6RhrLKCnzP4EUWYS7ijTiLR8ENdFH9J/adlREGJiiT7+4yJBYmPZAi e+9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=l/+tryFqiK1tMJF+vXYM3NhXiJob19f7oEf3ljJ4qp8=; b=qya4ITWkt09pzYkGXaYUUUBI0wfeRga8qdQmHpdarD5CJ8Z48AKx6fCXKGmaGNRvk6 EYpf4CU8tz67wx3HNcugZB+V8bCpZ30rSZJ0xgy4sHiVc7gFLZZK7wQptq9PyQlwMYfj mbP+8MgYdhH1PRawvNWILaqZI/ZxRNtKnyVmhuQ6+u1gpToyhznDsM2tIf6l2if6zeKH +vyyFrA5hWkb2AtX57ZnAgaRw53lB3lp2RrGAqqqhUySy7hfpIkXCDPpxcKra34UWzwN L+YIyEySTTdpNWO3VSc0DfNE1XOrNu6hlE8v3Ajyg652PASGNWA4K7YQdivtNOJdXoZ8 aNdA== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51A9WOiIpARYxYZDqd3Xlo3gzfCEw7HG534f28tCUB2EBXyhzPzp 2mRzxXOGbZftvNV0+tjxsHC6MhgAQADa27BY4ChZa2mWTuo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYqlid+Z0STWvC+HEYVnCWtB1Q0pozKlFv+tolKLVVRhuJLsd8epcSEO52MMhV80lp4YaOdvRSZksyxPfkPS0M= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c5cc:: with SMTP id v195-v6mr2880888wmf.29.1535661389573; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:36:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180830200239.ujuzh7pitcuatdt3@petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <20180830200239.ujuzh7pitcuatdt3@petertodd.org> From: Jimmy Song Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:36:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: pete@petertodd.org, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ef4720574ad0709" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 23:18:54 +0000 Cc: shiva sitamraju Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testnet3 Reest X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:36:31 -0000 --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
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.lin= uxfoundation.org> wrote:
On = Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:58:42PM +0530, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev wrot= e:
> Hi,
>
> Testnet is now 1411795 blocks and a full sync is taking atleast 48 hou= rs.
>
> Is a testnet reset scheduled in the next release or any reason not to = do a
> reset ?
>
> Fast onboarding/lower disk overheads would be=C2=A0 very much appreica= ted for
> testing purposes

Actually I'd advocate the opposite: I'd want testnet to be a *large= r*
blockchain than mainnet to find size-related issues first.

Note that for testing regtest is often a better alternative, and you can se= tup
private regtest blockchains fairly easily and with good control over exactl= y
when and how blocks are created.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000009ef4720574ad0709--