BIP95: Testnet 5#2196
Open
fjahr wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
murchandamus
left a comment
murchandamus
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good first showing. I have left a few comments and suggestions.
murchandamus
left a comment
murchandamus
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good improvements, thanks for the quick response. I gave this another read:
jonatack
reviewed
Jun 24, 2026
jonatack
left a comment
jonatack
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM to me. A few minor comments.
| have passed since the previous block. Testnet 4 kept this exception with the aim of allowing CPU users a | ||
| limited path to acquire coins for testing, to mine non-standard transactions that other miners would not | ||
| relay, and to keep the chain moving if a large source of hash power were to leave the network. Shortly | ||
| after Testnet 4's introduction, the exception has been systematically and persistently exploited, which |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| after Testnet 4's introduction, the exception has been systematically and persistently exploited, which | |
| after Testnet 4's introduction, the exception had been systematically and persistently exploited, which |
| relay, and to keep the chain moving if a large source of hash power were to leave the network. Shortly | ||
| after Testnet 4's introduction, the exception has been systematically and persistently exploited, which | ||
| prevented the exception from achieving the intended | ||
| goals. While block storms were prevented, the network suffers from constant re-orgs of small |
| for analysis and discussion). | ||
|
|
||
| In Testnet 5 there is no exception to the PoW rules. This appears to be the logical conclusion, | ||
| since any such exception could be exploited by a motivated attacker. This |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mildly ambiguous subject.
Suggested change
| since any such exception could be exploited by a motivated attacker. This | |
| since any such exception could be exploited by a motivated attacker. The lack of exception |
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
|
|
||
| Testnet 5 follows the same consensus rules as mainnet with the following two changes. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Testnet 5 follows the same consensus rules as mainnet with the following two changes. | |
| Testnet 5 follows the same consensus rules as mainnet, except for the following two changes. |
| ## Rationale | ||
|
|
||
| Instead of starting a new Testnet, changing the rules of Testnet 4 was considered as well. The decision | ||
| for a new network has two main reasons: |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| for a new network has two main reasons: | |
| for a new network had two main reasons: |
|
|
||
| Testnet 5's consensus rules are not compatible with those of Testnet 3 and Testnet 4. The | ||
| consensus rules differ in both directions: Testnet 5 enforces the BIP 54 consensus rules from | ||
| block 1 which is not the case for Testnet 3 or Testnet 4. Testnet 5 also does not apply the |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| block 1 which is not the case for Testnet 3 or Testnet 4. Testnet 5 also does not apply the | |
| block 1, which is not the case for Testnet 3 or Testnet 4. Testnet 5 also does not apply the |
|
|
||
| ## Rationale | ||
|
|
||
| Instead of starting a new Testnet, changing the rules of Testnet 4 was considered as well. The decision |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps link to discussion in bitcoin/bitcoin#31117 somewhere in this BIP.
Suggested change
| Instead of starting a new Testnet, changing the rules of Testnet 4 was considered as well. The decision | |
| Instead of starting a new Testnet, changing the rules of Testnet 4 [was considered](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31117) as well. The decision |
|
|
||
| ## Reference Implementation | ||
|
|
||
| Pull request at ? |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that a reference implementation and test vectors (if applicable) would be needed before advancing the status from Draft to Complete.
|
|
||
| ### BIP 54 activation | ||
|
|
||
| The rules specified in [BIP 54 version 1.0.0][BIP54] are active on Testnet 5 from block 1. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the link to BIP54 be present on the first mention of the BIP (Line 22 under Abstract)?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Following up from the discussion on the mailing list.