From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14312C000B for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:40:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A04381450 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:40:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 qYiTGT8BFcWy for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:40:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF00881449 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:40:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id bn33so15634388ljb.6 for ; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 15:40:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dXpP9xl+jJoVCZ+Rhu3K4tdmD8lueARhMEjZaZQM8Tk=; b=GQgo9yhQUYY2Mgpgu2qnzs/NmkclvEAXIHwabnXSR9kmnCnV/iUz+K/ov0BN9qt4Rh dBRdgSEx00vwo9RyDXf8TjmUzBqCWcKnlBXWZJ96mGBRJ5MMn6OfMAfEdVsMf7eUQceY NYc/jxK14/JGoGNvF7z+VV26ep3KmjOEQLFqrgEjWYGyn66i9jxy3hQ2FKPJIp2jfdfu nYgFv9IyTCmTQ1R6px9+M+o+wmac+XHFhoGsqEOlUsq+JalDmhV8eIWltoW9P3fM5ni3 UNG6t/3wC0zghObklUu2zEOuuinosV+BWCRIdJbJAx6seEq42qrD9h55JxuDg7227TjM h7oQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dXpP9xl+jJoVCZ+Rhu3K4tdmD8lueARhMEjZaZQM8Tk=; b=x073OYvBdA/21TYq4I0YaH300KJcRkMEvu16BAygebbuFBMdMdLLQ5aRzwoy6iExoE k4GecQQKIreWlFp6esY/zDOkdlMyDs4VOyxA452eAvWlD8O33RMU3ktYQFq9HXmGfPdY 9KFKQD+IldQ5/wKg/R0cduZxA60LxtZwNOg6s7Eu5cr3++1wdWzYELsbqT5kyES2W574 0KNVdDzeVqFD5Yh3xxyNC7U8RMQE8Uk06xW23WG+NsINw4OR2pGROZkWrJmr2BAeGENt qfHMd6lu1GHMeNmpA5IvJgMAWg2hpZse+iRSj6Vw/YnpybCYtXoaWVF9IE9S5WWwfG6f XJKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530b1DjYWJf2O6R+HvM7qs3pKdW2OqZ5q672z1NfQyfCGcXmPxbS kC8sS+HxkyKWFufaM92lJlh36yv2nZ8rJMFWlOY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBJ9DILsaor7GhF56zFByymhxP+sbVo9VU1jXpFvUBUKEHImgtDJPtqg6dZg6c/5V4xzxWsATHOtd1fUc11O4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b16e:0:b0:23b:92f0:9191 with SMTP id a14-20020a2eb16e000000b0023b92f09191mr3074508ljm.57.1646523623517; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 15:40:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <157830221-11b5cb76ed5c332d9b27cdd734c5f3b1@pmq5v.m5r2.onet> In-Reply-To: <157830221-11b5cb76ed5c332d9b27cdd734c5f3b1@pmq5v.m5r2.onet> From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:40:11 +0000 Message-ID: To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 23:40:27 -0000 --000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Signet degrades to a testnet if you make your key OP_TRUE. It's not about needing 21M coins it's about easily getting access to said coins for testing, where it's kinda tricky to get testnet coins. On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 6:17 PM 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. > > But testing pegging is what is needed if we ever want to introduce > sidechains. 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 don'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 > signets can be pegged into that. Also, testnet3 is permissionless, so how > signet can replace that? Because if you want to test mining and you cannot > mine any blocks in signet, then it is another problem. > > On 2022-03-05 17:19:40 user Jeremy Rubin 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 > run 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 > testing. > > > > > If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that signet > is available. > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 3:53 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 signets 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 > testnet3 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 > there 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 rules. But the question still remains: why we need new coins, > created out of thin air? And even when some signet wants to do that, then > why it is not pegged into testnet3? Then it would have as much chainwork > protection as testnet3! > > It seems that testnet3 is good enough to represent the main chain during > sidechain testing. It is permissionless and open, anyone can start mining > sidechain blocks, anyone with a CPU can be lucky and find a block with the > minimal difficulty. Also, because of blockstorms and regular chain reorgs, > some extreme scenarios, like stealing all coins from some sidechain, can be > tested in a public way, because that "unfriendly and unstable" environment > can 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 signets can be pegged in with 1:1 ratio, existing signets can > be transformed into signet sidechains (the signet miners rule that chains, > so they can enforce any transition rules they need). > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Signet degrades to a testnet if you make your key OP_TRUE= .=C2=A0


It's not about needing 21M coins it's about easily getting ac= cess to said coins for testing, where it's kinda tricky to get testnet = coins.=C2=A0

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022, 6:17 PM <vjudeu@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> There's no point to pegging coins that are worthless int= o a system of also worthless coins, unless you want to test the mechanism o= f 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 quest= ion still remains: why we need more than 21 million coins for testing, if w= e don't need more than 21 million coins for real transactions?

> If anything I think we should permanently shutter testnet now that sig= net is available.

Then, in that case, the "mainchain" can be our official signet an= d other signets can be pegged into that. Also, testnet3 is permissionless, = so how signet can replace that? Because if you want to test mining and you = cannot mine 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 a= lso worthless coins, unless you want to test the mechanism of testing peggi= ng.


As is, it's hard enough to get people set up on a signet, if they have = to run 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 te= sting.




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.linuxfoundation.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 i= s: why signets are introducing new coins out of thin air, instead of formin= g 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" envi= ronment can 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.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--000000000000b1b0ad05d98127cb--