Topic: Future of testnet3 network. (Read 450 times)

It depends, what attack you have in mind. Because attacking testnet3 is possible, if you combine timewarp with blockstorms. But: there are some fixes in testnet4, so it won't be that easy to repeat it there. And of course, there are plans to fix timewarp in mainnet (but it is much harder to exploit it, because there is no "difficulty reset", and also it is not that easy to trigger it, so I guess the chain will be silently continued, without any splits, even if some fix will be applied).

Not that much. First, V4 is already there (and even if it will be resetted again, it seems that we reached a consensus, when it comes to the new Genesis Block). Second, there are many test networks, as well as many altcoins. It is impossible to support all of them, so it depends, which network will be picked by the users. And that network will be supported, while others may be simply ignored.

Test coins are worthless, so it is the same case if you switch from testnet3 into signet: you simply ignore your old coins, and get new ones from faucets (or mine them), and start accumulating your testing potential from scratch.

What kills V3 could kill V4, and i use the word kill because the V3 us unusable... a blockchain with 2.3M of unconfirmed transactions and blocks with only 67 transactions, that was a nice way to doom the network. An we should learn from it because if it happens in the test net it could happen in the main net too. I mean, isn't cheap but it's possible.

What would happen in altquick when the V4 comes? will it be a side market or you will drop V3 and only use V4?

Huh? It is in Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775

Judging by the current state of that discussion, I guess the Genesis Block will stay as it is now. Other blocks may change, but mainly people are discussing about network rules, like difficulty adjustments, so even if there will be some new Genesis Block, then it would contain just some block hash from the mainnet, and a zero-filled, completely invalid public key in the output.

Well, test coins are meant to be worthless. You can use this test network or another. It doesn't matter. You can also run signet with signetchallenge set to OP_TRUE, then you will get roughly the same outcome as testnet4.

So, what are the problems with testnet4, that you can currently see?

By the way: people can still use testnet3 if they want. This chain is decentralized. If it will be removed from Core, then it would mean, that it would simply turn into some kind of altcoin (just like testnet2 and testnet1 are now nothing more than some abandoned altcoins). And guess what: you can use an altcoin, even if there are no developers supporting it. But then, don't be surprised, if it would be completely unreliable, filled with blockstorms, and without any new bugfixes. And obviously, there would be constant attacks, to convince people, that they should switch into other test networks, where blockstorms are fixed.

Also, I guess new test networks will be resetted more often, which means, that we will get testnet5, testnet6, and so on in the next years. Which means, that if you want to test the network after many halvings, you will be forced to stay with testnet3, because no new test network will get there.

2.3 million pending unconfirmed transactions in v3.0 https://mempool.space/testnet

Mempool and Lopp + some other dude on twitter say they launched a v4, but ehhh... it's not in core... it's just a shitcoin of a testnet coin IMO.  https://mempool.space/testnet4

We shall see though I guess.

Testnet clearly needs some fixing, I think a v4 is a good idea, but done the right way and stuff fixed.

I didn't get it in October 2023, when you wrote it, but it seems you were right:

https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/bitcoin-testnet-could-need-reset-13-years-jameson-lopp-griefing/

@vjudeu: I wonder, if your next predictions from your topic will also be correct.

I tested it in Electrum (testnet): it recommended almost 50 sat/vbyte, which puts it 0.66 MB from the top. When I tried 20 sat/vbyte, it got 130 MB from the top. With 10 sat/vbyte, I can't even broadcast it.
At least testnet has the difficulty adjustment thing, so once in a while it processes a lot of blocks to clear the backlog. But other than that, it's more congested than real Bitcoin.

We separated the exchange from the faucet.  The exchange rebranded to AltQuick.com and the faucet remained a faucet.

Brand issues for the products provided at the time. 

People had a HUGE issue with "Free" + "Bitcoins" for a long time after the Twitter hack. 

I thought Altquick was just a rebranding of freebitcoins? Or am I wrong about that?

It's like this with Bitcoin too for these estimator services.  Bitcoin Core's estimator is likely the worst offender.

All that matters is what their client can see.  (I've clearly had this bite me in the ass a few times on main net.)

We used to use our own wallet to estimate our fees, but for some reason couldn't see the whole network, now we use Mempool.

The only thing weird here is that if you use the same tool to see fees on which network is higher, you get a different results.
Blockcypher reports higher fee on mainnet compared to testnet 0.00069 BTC/KB vs 0.00032 BTC/KB
mempool.space reports higher fee on testnet compared to mainnet 25 sat/vB vs 47 sat/vB

Sometimes these fee estimators either have bugs or use different methodology that returns different fee estimation. I believe mempool.space is more accurate though.

Shit is being tested... that much is for sure.

Win.


Testnet is already an altcoin.

#ThickSkinGang

They should make their own version of Testnet: they can mine as much as they want, they can spam as much as they want, they can hype as much as they want, and they're not bothering the rest of us. Let's call it an altcoin. How ironic would that be, if Runes complete the cycle all the way back to the first thing created to get money from gullible people?

Testnet fees are now higher than Bitcoin fees. I'd say that's a win!

While new systems to these might be better than previous, there isn’t any certainty that they wouldn’t come with some vulnerabilities of their own.
Wouldn’t the more probable thing to do would be to improve on the existing system as per an improved version to it without coming up with an entirely different system all together?

I suppose the reasons for attacks and some of the hacking is often about discovering vulnerabilities or loopholes within a system and have it fixed. Rather than having to continue the same circle over and over again on new models or systems to these networks.

I finally got the data of UTXO growth on testnet after enabling additional index and using command gettxoutsetinfo "none" block_height

Block height	Time	txouts value (total UTXO)
2415000	2023-01-06 17:41:19	28309184
2570000	2024-01-02 08:18:03	30140226
2588100	2024-04-19 17:32:26 (just before halving on mainnet network)	49671269
2810957	Today (when i write this post)	121751208

Since from beginning of this year, about 91M UTXO has been created. And since just before halving on mainnet network, about 72M UTXO has been created. So it disprove your speculation that it's caused by people who abandoned their tBTC after done with their testing.


Looking at above UTXO data and news i shared on this thread, it could be combination of Ordinal and Rune spam.

Altquick uses FreeBitcoins.com to provide a free faucet for those not needing whole coins or wanting to use the free market.

AltQuick doesn't determine prices... the market does, so if Bitcoin Testnet has zero value... the free market should reflect that.

It's the best way to run a faucet + keep coins circulating IMO.

We intend on listing v4 if needed.  *shrugs* No biggie... Testnet don't die, they multiple and it's our strongest market... (which is fucking insane).

How about an annual replacement? Each testnet can last 2 years, so you don't have to change things during testing, but each year a new testnet starts so there's never a shortage in testnet coins. Testnet4 can start today, Testnet5 starts next year, and 2 years from now when Testnet6 starts, Testnet4 ends while Testnet5 still continues for another year.

I haven't used mine since January, and back then it was only 34 GB with 1.7 GB chainstate. Is that caused by Ordinal spam?

The "can't" I said is the answer to this statement of yours:
You are forgetting that the mess we are seeing is something that started recently and we are at block height 2.8 million. Only the coinbase tx of the same height can be duplicated, meaning you can NOT have coinbase of block #2.8 million as block #2 and create that "sequence" of UTXOs since the height is included inside the coinbase signature script.

If we migrate to version 4 (a brand new chain from block #1) and make the difficulty manipulation harder, it would take many years (50+) to get to block #2.8 million and by then nobody would even remember the said shittokens.

It's quite some months ago that I last ran a Core Testnet3 full node synced on one of my virtual machines. I remember some numbers like in the ballpark around 30GB for blocks, chainstate and indexes. Frankly, I'm shocked to see the current size easily doubled and more (can't remember from when my low numbers were).

And at the moment I also see blocks with nearly 4MWU size, insane! (OK, ok, if you want to test full blocks, they need to be filled to the limits.)

What's next? Inscribers abusing Testnet3 or other data spam dumped into the Testnet3 blockchain. WTF, this is pure madness!

Because it is as close to the mainnet, as possible. In the first version, even the Genesis Block was identical, so it was possible to literally overwrite the whole chain. Then, some small changes were introduced here and there, people switched to some new Genesis Block, and added the famous rule of resetting the difficulty, which caused blockstorms later.

Ideally, the test network would have all rules, identical to the mainnet, but where you could experiment with worthless coins. And the main challenge is: what set of rules are needed, to make coins worthless, and to not departure from the mainnet by too much?

In that case, how do you test halvings, if they would not be present in the test network? Not to mention, that if you have no halvings, then after block 420,000, the whole supply will reach exactly 21 million coins, which means, that there will be some potential, to trigger some rules from the Value Overflow Incident. Because that amount "21 million" is hard-coded in some places, and if you have bigger supply, then some tests may fail. And also, if you have too many coins, then if you have conversions between integers, and floating-point types, then your representation may not be exact, and you may lose some precision.

And if you have no halvings, then you can always get a lot of fresh coins to spam the network at will. Because the amount you use, is correlated with the amount of data, which you can publicly share.

Could anyone clarify this for me?  Why does testnet3 have halvings?  Given that the coins hold no value, there seems to be no rationale for imposing a supply cap.  It might be better to maintain it at 50 tBTC per block indefinitely, ensuring everyone always has an equal opportunity to earn a sufficient amount.  With halvings, it's only a matter of time before the network resets due to the absence of block rewards.


That's correct.  Spamming on the mainnet is discouraged because... you're paying actual money.  In the testnet, you could execute a spam attack at no expense.