testnet4

testnet4
2019-06-08 14:21 ` Bryan Bishop
  
From: Emil Engler @ 2019-06-07 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

Hello, I tried myself with some Bitcoin development. For this I used of 
course the Bitcoin testnet. However it took me one hour to sync the 
blockchain with around 1538358 blocks. In my opinion that is too much 
for a testnet. Especially the blockchain size with around 26GB is so 
much. Would it be possible to reset the testnet with a new genesis block 
? And if so, can we setup a fixed cycle for resetting the testnet (For 
example every second 1st of January) ?

Greetings,
Emil Engler


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-07 23:49 [bitcoin-dev] testnet4 Emil Engler

  2019-06-08 15:01   ` Emil Engler
  
From: Bryan Bishop @ 2019-06-08 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Emil Engler, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Bryan Bishop

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]

Be greeted Emil,

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:21 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello, I tried myself with some Bitcoin development. For this I used of
> course the Bitcoin testnet. However it took me one hour to sync the
> blockchain with around 1538358 blocks. In my opinion that is too much
> for a testnet. Especially the blockchain size with around 26GB is so
> much. Would it be possible to reset the testnet with a new genesis block
> ? And if so, can we setup a fixed cycle for resetting the testnet (For
> example every second 1st of January) ?
>

At the moment, I somewhat doubt this is likely to happen. Signet provides
an alternative for configuring multiple separate private and public testing
networks. If you would like to get involved, check out the recent
discussion on the topic recorded here:
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-07-signet/

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1483 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-08 14:21 ` Bryan Bishop

  2019-06-16 20:25     ` Peter Todd
  
From: Emil Engler @ 2019-06-08 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bryan Bishop, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

I don't get why the testnet shouldn't be resetted just because there is 
a (probably better) alternative for it. The testnet is still a thing and 
is also used.

Am 08.06.19 um 16:21 schrieb Bryan Bishop:
> Be greeted Emil,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:21 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello, I tried myself with some Bitcoin development. For this I used of
>     course the Bitcoin testnet. However it took me one hour to sync the
>     blockchain with around 1538358 blocks. In my opinion that is too much
>     for a testnet. Especially the blockchain size with around 26GB is so
>     much. Would it be possible to reset the testnet with a new genesis
>     block
>     ? And if so, can we setup a fixed cycle for resetting the testnet (For
>     example every second 1st of January) ?
> 
> 
> At the moment, I somewhat doubt this is likely to happen. Signet 
> provides an alternative for configuring multiple separate private and 
> public testing networks. If you would like to get involved, check out 
> the recent discussion on the topic recorded here:
> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-07-signet/
> 
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-08 15:01   ` Emil Engler

  2019-06-17 11:41       ` Emil Engler
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2019-06-16 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Emil Engler, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 796 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I don't get why the testnet shouldn't be resetted just because there is a
> (probably better) alternative for it. The testnet is still a thing and is
> also used.

Remember that the size of testnet itself is an important test; I've argued in
that past that we should consider making testnet *larger* than mainnet. There's
good arguments against that too, but I personally think the current size is a
reasonable compromise.

Of course, I personally tend to do all my testing on either internal regtest
nodes, or directly on mainnet. But the fact that works for me is specific to
the exact type of development I do and may not be applicable to you.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2019-06-16 20:25     ` Peter Todd

  
From: Emil Engler @ 2019-06-17 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Todd, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1103 bytes --]

Indeed a large testnet blockchain has advantages too.
But because it is the testnet and the testnet coins have no value, the
blockchain could be 'spammed' after a reset for some days/weeks until it
has a certain size.
Could this be realistic solution ?

Am 16.06.19 um 22:25 schrieb Peter Todd:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I don't get why the testnet shouldn't be resetted just because there is a
>> (probably better) alternative for it. The testnet is still a thing and is
>> also used.
> 
> Remember that the size of testnet itself is an important test; I've argued in
> that past that we should consider making testnet *larger* than mainnet. There's
> good arguments against that too, but I personally think the current size is a
> reasonable compromise.
> 
> Of course, I personally tend to do all my testing on either internal regtest
> nodes, or directly on mainnet. But the fact that works for me is specific to
> the exact type of development I do and may not be applicable to you.
> 

-- 
https://www.emilengler.com

[-- Attachment #2: pEpkey.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3199 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]