testnet4

> Hello, I tried myself with some Bitcoin development. For this I used of
> course the Bitcoin testnet. However it took me one hour to sync the
> blockchain with around 1538358 blocks. In my opinion that is too much
> for a testnet. Especially the blockchain size with around 26GB is so
> much. Would it be possible to reset the testnet with a new genesis block
> ? And if so, can we setup a fixed cycle for resetting the testnet (For
> example every second 1st of January) ?
>

> Be greeted Emil,
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:21 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hello, I tried myself with some Bitcoin development. For this I used of
>     course the Bitcoin testnet. However it took me one hour to sync the
>     blockchain with around 1538358 blocks. In my opinion that is too much
>     for a testnet. Especially the blockchain size with around 26GB is so
>     much. Would it be possible to reset the testnet with a new genesis
>     block
>     ? And if so, can we setup a fixed cycle for resetting the testnet (For
>     example every second 1st of January) ?
>
>
> At the moment, I somewhat doubt this is likely to happen. Signet
> provides an alternative for configuring multiple separate private and
> public testing networks. If you would like to get involved, check out
> the recent discussion on the topic recorded here:
> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-07-signet/
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/

> 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.

> 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.
>