Re: [bitcoin-dev] testnet4
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 pEpkey.asc Description: application/pgp-keys ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] testnet4
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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP - v2 peer-to-peer message transport protocol
Hi everyone, About the nonce being 64bit. (rfc7539 changed it to 96bit, which djb later calls xchacha) You suggest that we use the "message sequence number" as the nonce for Chacha20, Is this number randomly generate or is this a counter? And could it be reseted without rekeying? If it is randomly generated then 64bit isn't secure enough. And we should either move to the chacha20 from RFC7539 which has 96bit nonce and 32bit counter or increment it manually every time. If it's simply a counter then 64bit nonce should be fine :) Thanks, Elichai. -- PGP: 5607C93B5F86650C ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
