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
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
|
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC3FC000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 5 Mar 2022 18:17:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EB681871
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 5 Mar 2022 18:17:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id LmbHqOMxlUkN
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 5 Mar 2022 18:17:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from smtpo104.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo104.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.149.157])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C949181858
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 5 Mar 2022 18:17:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq5v.m5r2.onet (pmq5v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.25])
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4K9tGr2hFrzkXY;
Sat, 5 Mar 2022 19:17:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
t=1646504228; bh=9jqWIvCF1h3X1SQ7lgi4iSXNgy62/qcUdJRMZ20n328=;
h=From:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From;
b=uoQNYgCttUQSFPnShrHuiwe7mBBFKRWxhblVQRyKjzBrp9foE0wGXo1B3y0i9pJAY
V8mKjYBAIYIX8s8THXuIYKTITctYeXeBqnzL3fWct/lDk4vnZo6ktmNnYbOI53polu
f77mZZvNcx4vDJvDsAGxKASUzQyYIlCue4sDKg60=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [5.173.240.223] by pmq5v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
Sat, 05 Mar 2022 19:17:08 +0100
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhj-GcyRbtXd3kWoy-xA8NsePTxRQsQ5fJf+-yjSaESA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 19:17:07 +0100
Message-Id: <157830221-11b5cb76ed5c332d9b27cdd734c5f3b1@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.240.223;PL;2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 18:35:55 +0000
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 18:17:18 -0000
> There's no point to pegging coins that are worthless into a system of als=
o 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 sidechai=
ns. 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 do=
n'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 si=
gnets can be pegged into that. Also, testnet3 is permissionless, so how sig=
net can replace that? Because if you want to test mining and you cannot min=
e 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 r=
un 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 testin=
g.
If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that signet i=
s available.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 3:53 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.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 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).
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
