pull down to refresh
@Murch
stacking since: #127838
45 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 21 Mar \ parent \ on: What's wrong with the Testnet4 network? bitcoin
I hope that they don’t make any money and get bored, but I’m not particularly confident that’s going to be the case. At least some time ago, it was pretty easy to get Testnet4 coins from the mempool.space faucet, and as far as I am aware transaction processing works fine. Otherwise, maybe kick off your own signet?
small clarification:
if the timestamp of a block is 20 minutes into the future
I meant that if the timestamp of a block is at least 20 minutes later than the prior block’s timestamp, the difficulty has to be 1.
Testnet4 has a fix for the difficulty adjustment that was causing blockstorms on Testnet3, but we kept the 20 minute exception: if the timestamp of a block is 20 minutes into the future, the block must have minimum difficulty. The idea was that it would allow protocol and app developers to mine themselves some testnet coins or to mine a non-standard transaction into a block to test what they are working on.
In the past couple years, people started trading Testnet3 coins on an altcoin exchange, which made it even harder to get testnet coins for free (but maybe more reliable if you were willing to pay). Testnet3 was already at a block height of 4 million and the subsidy had largely dried up, so between that, people trying to harvest coins from faucets to sell them, and various "layer2" projects testing on Testnet3, they made decent money.
This set the stage for the Testnet4 launch. Unfortunately, immediately after launch, someone started mining all of the Testnet4 blocks they could by exploiting the 20 minute rule programmatically: every time a new block with actual difficulty was found, they would immediately create 6 blocks pushed forward into the future by intervals of 20 minutes at minimum difficulty. Other people seem to also try that, so that there are a ton of reorgs now. Basically, a classic tragedy of the commons: someone tried to exploit the commons for personal profit and now it’s broken for everyone.
To make this more constructive: what's your precise claim? That there are also some benefits of that the benefits outweigh the detrimental effects? If the latter, that the benefits globally outweigh the downsides or that this is the case for a specific region?
Temperatures have been rising as predicted. Desertification has been progressing as predicted. Ocean levels have been rising as predicted. More people have been dying due to extreme heat events. Storms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, extreme weather swings, and wildfires have been increasing as predicted.
You claim that the increase in temperature is beneficial. You have not provided an argument or piece of evidence in what way that might be the case. You're making the extraordinary claim, it's on you to substantiate it.
It seems silly to me to reject the scientific consensus on basis of a cherry-picked sensationally phrased prediction in a newspaper article from 36 years ago not having come to pass. If you read the rest of the article, you see the desertification and droughts right there mentioned next to it.
I'm sure that access to additional milk was a great boon to children back then.
Food safety improvements like pasteurization reduce crap like salmonella, tuberculosis, and food poisoning that we can all do without.
Even in 1950 one in four newborns died in childhood.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that that predictions are not in the process of coming true. The article describes what a temperature increase of 3-7°C would do, and we're at +1.25°C.
We have had unprecedented droughts in Europe and North America, an uptick in wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. The Maldives have experienced erosion in 90% of their country and are spending half of their national budget on combatting the effects of rising sea levels, we're seeing increased desertification and exhaustion of ground water in other parts of the world. So, the predictions seem directionally correct, if perhaps not completely accurate in magnitude.
Average global temperature has increased by over 1.25°C in the past fifty years, and we have ample evidence that this has been enough to affect weather and wind systems, and affect ocean currents as well as increasing extreme weather incidents. TBH, before I moved to the US, I wasn’t even aware that anyone seriously doubted this—it’s almost unanimous scientific consensus with no serious institutions holding contrarian opinions.
I sincerely believe that climate change will severely impact the quality of life in most regions of the planet in the next 30–50 years unless humanity musters a staunch response to it.
I’ll take what appears to be the contrarian position in this forum: yes, human activity is the main cause of climate change.
Torrent is a strawman. The transaction data in the Bitcoin network is forwarded to all full nodes, while torrent data only flows from the seeders to the requesting client. Besides, Torrent has long required leechers to upload some proportion of the consumed download bandwidth to prevent excess one-sided bandwidth use.
I will consider your disagreement without refuting my arguments as admitting that you do not have evidence for your position.
As a side note, consider also setting incrementalrelayfee=0 instead of the default 3000 in order to relay replacement transactions which fee-rates don't change.
- The default value for the incremental relay feerate is 1000 ṩ/kvB, not 3000 ṩ/vB.
- A single node setting this to 0 ṩ/kvB will not cause endless amounts of data to be forwarded, simply because other network participants will not even be aware, and we currently would not see any attempts to make replacements without paying more.
- Many nodes on the network setting this policy would be problematic: any malicious actor becoming aware of this would be able to endlessly cycle the same two transactions replacing each other among the part of the network that has decreased their incremental relay feerate to 0. This would waste the affected nodes’ bandwidth, and once their ISPs throttle them, essentially remove them from the relay network. We could argue over whether 1 ṩ/vB is too much or too little, but dropping the requirement that the fees in the mempool increase for replacements is definitely problematic: it’s asking nodes to open themselves up to bandwidth wasting and DOS vectors.
- I showed that your initial recommendation was problematic and now you are shifting goal posts without engaging with the substance of my argument. You can do better.