1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
|
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0294DC000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE18A40268
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id sdHirkeuLZYx
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from smtpo89.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo89.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.149.142])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D27494009E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq4v.m5r2.onet (pmq4v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.70])
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4K9Kd94NGszlhmkd
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 21:46:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
t=1646426765; bh=Qr6OhgSGzJ/RAQbPK9k7CK/ZqgHn51b24Rqg/VhHMvk=;
h=From:To:Date:Subject:From;
b=T/zoYXiu+nggCrLwLua+/ldOzNqQGYxmLmCD7JLz84WHTf/F3CCN1B3+cXoPQvlY+
nE1klbAR55LqjVOXXZ25kqcM5kYVuuUo9MBl1lHDrQf9agREJ1LEJXNFxRiwl4oGts
AUsT4XZS7Wx06nQ8GuAtTpQm5cEEeVIP1xg+wRQ0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [5.173.240.223] by pmq4v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
Fri, 04 Mar 2022 21:46:05 +0100
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 21:46:04 +0100
Message-Id: <158234619-439597ed4ddc4a9f90ea573513b5f5a3@pmq4v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.240.223;PL;1
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 15:53:26 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] One testnet to rule them all
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 20:46:14 -0000
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 sig=
nets 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 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.
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!
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 "unfriendly and unstable" environment ca=
n 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 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).
|
