Emil Engler [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-06-17 📝 Original message:Indeed a large testnet ...

📅 Original date posted:2019-06-17
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pEpkey.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3147 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190617/80546911/attachment.bin>;