Hi Varunram, On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:41 PM Varunram Ganesh <varunramgan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I like your idea of a signet as it would greatly help test reorgs and stuff > without having to experiment with regtest. But I'm a bit concerned about > running a common signet (Signet1) controlled by a trusted entity. I guess if > someone wants to test signet on a global scale, they could spin up a couple > nodes in a couple places (and since it is anyway trusted, they can choose to > run it on centralised services like AWS). Another concern is that the > maintainer might have unscheduled work, emergencies, etc and that could > affect how people test stuff on. This would also mean that we need people to > run signet1 nodes in parallel with current testnet nodes (one could argue > that Signet is trusted anyway and this doesn't matter, still) > > I'm sure you would have considered these while designing, so would be great > to hear your thoughts.
For starters, I assume that the signer would run an automated script that generated blocks on regular intervals without requiring manual interaction. So even if the signer went on a vacation, the network would keep on ticking. I also assume the signer would be running a faucet service so users could get coins as needed. Ultimately though, if a signer ended up vanishing or being unreliable, people would just set up a new signet with a different signer and use that instead, so ultimately it's not a big deal. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
