📅 Original date posted:2018-08-30 📝 Original message:A public testnet is still ...

Johnson Lau [ARCHIVE] /

npub1fyh…2mv9

2023-06-07 18:14:16

in reply to nevent1q…hyxy

📅 Original date posted:2018-08-30
📝 Original message:A public testnet is still useful so in articles people could make references to these transactions.

Maybe we could have 2 testnets at the same time, with one having a smaller block size?

> On 31 Aug 2018, at 4:02 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> 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
>
>

Author Public Key

npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:14:16

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "36a48e6ea95031c410db81675343178be80cfafd0d3d80e18d820bf96a16f84e", "pubkey": "492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7", "created_at": 1686161656, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "cd4307ef9ff90014e7d5c2c3de74b499531773aef267b0e2326413189f01bc5b", "", "root" ], [ "e", "19bfb07fca2559416f8cf3c42a02987023328ff67d939011d66333a7e7fd541c", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "f38e3745cbc0df11360d95f78947ce7a35ff1510807f9fae029e4cdb2d8f039e" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-08-30\n📝 Original message:A public testnet is still useful so in articles people could make references to these transactions.\n\nMaybe we could have 2 testnets at the same time, with one having a smaller block size?\n\n\u003e On 31 Aug 2018, at 4:02 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Signed PGP part\n\u003e On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:58:42PM +0530, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Hi,\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Testnet is now 1411795 blocks and a full sync is taking atleast 48 hours.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Is a testnet reset scheduled in the next release or any reason not to do a\n\u003e\u003e reset ?\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Fast onboarding/lower disk overheads would be very much appreicated for\n\u003e\u003e testing purposes\n\u003e \n\u003e Actually I'd advocate the opposite: I'd want testnet to be a *larger*\n\u003e blockchain than mainnet to find size-related issues first.\n\u003e \n\u003e Note that for testing regtest is often a better alternative, and you can setup\n\u003e private regtest blockchains fairly easily and with good control over exactly\n\u003e when and how blocks are created.\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e \n\u003e", "sig": "e2e276653520eac2d227259f5caa04290b397d61ecadabb95b4b9d0e0bc59edb251872502908f380aa130c2d1d136863bca35949de22239734af7a71b5898aae" }