Quote from: gmaxwell on May 27, 2025, 09:24:49 PM

Testnet 3 was made purposefully defective in a number of ways so it went a long time before anyone was foolish enough to pay much for it, but it just goes to show that if you make something fool proof nature will just create a bigger fool.

Testnet 4 was done in the same defective ways to an extent, correct?

It seems foolish to me to do something the same way twice and expect different results(?)

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 27, 2025, 09:24:49 PM

TN1 was the only one that existed when Satoshi was still potentially around. So no, the thing you call testnet wouldn't be linked to Satoshi.

You say "potentially" like you think it may not have been Satoshi posting on his/their account asking people not to trade it?

It's pretty obvious that Satoshi was around for Testnet v1. v1 has obviously inspired future version as it should.

Whoever intentionally left bugs or "features" in should probably reconsider that in some fashion. Bugs are a two way door IMO.

Leaving in bugs or silly features that do not work as intended in a testcoin is not the path to the easiest and smoothest release into Mainnet.

People should have confidence that the stuff they download is solid af IMO. If you want to release v__ that's fine, but it shouldn't problematic on purpose.

Fools + not fools can both use those doors.

Who is the "creator's intentions" that this goes against? If it isn't Satoshi. You?

Also, I don't think Bitcoin Testnet has ever been traded for money. Bitcoin is not money, which is what makes it great to an extent.

Having two "worthless" imaginary magic internet coins trading shouldn't be a shock. This "we will reset it when traded" mentality it going to put unnecessary pressure on Core Developers and will help the exchange... It's a silly tactic IRL Greg.

Glad to see https://blockstream.info/testnet/blocks/recent is on v4!!!

Other parts of the explorer are now broken it seems. https://blockstream.info/testnet/

Edit: nvm Blockstream is still on V3 lol... sigh.