<p>I received a message from Samuel Leathers about this issue. I am re-posting his response but if anyone would like to add additional information, please feel free to expand on the idiosyncrasies that Sam is talking about:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2 things:</p>
<p>db-sync doesn't work with the shortcut fork all eras in epoch 0 (yet, there's an
open PR adding this finally)</p>
<p>The protocol version will still be 2 if you fork everything at once.
This is something we've reported to the devs to get fixed later, but
essentially, even if you do have the config fork all eras (in 0 or sequentially)
you still need to submit update proposals every epoch to get it updated to 5.
There are some weird idiosyncrasies that can happen if era is Alonzo but
protocol version is less than 5.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-28T15:21:40.373Z
2021-08-29T13:17:49.587Z
2021-08-29T13:17:49.587Z
anthony stachowitz
<p>I am using scripts provided by <a href="https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node/tree/master/scripts" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IOHK</a> to help build a private testnet. I have been told (during discussions in the white/blue/purple testnet development) that best practice is to start the network in byron and move through the era's until Alonzo is reached. This is what IOHK seems to do when they launch a new testnet (from part of their new purple testnet announcement, &quot;<em>Please allow ten hours for the network to be ready to test against. This will mean we have <strong>made the network move through all the eras to Alonzo</strong> correctly</em>&quot;.<br><br>
I have tried to reach out to IOHK for an answer to this but have not received a response back yet - I understand that they are pretty busy right now so i figured I would ask here...<br><br>
The reason I would like to know is because I am working with one of the IOHK partners and we are trying to create an in-house, automatic, private blockchain tool - similiar to Ganache for Ethereum. We CAN currently start a private network in Alonzo which would make this task relatively simple but with the current best practice to start from Byron and progress to Alonzo, I would like to know what exactly we are giving up in functionality (or anything else) by directly starting in Alonzo instead?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-27T21:46:08.260Z
Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.
Community
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-28T15:15:09.337Z
Simply, What functionality do you loose by starting a private network in the Alonzo era vs starting a private network in the Byron era and updating to Alonzo through update proposals?
anthony stachowitz
<testnet>
Best practice when building a private Cardano testnet?
# Best practice when building a private Cardano testnet?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-08-26)

I am using scripts provided by [IOHK](https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node/tree/master/scripts) to help build a private testnet. I have been told (during discussions in the white/blue/purple testnet development) that best practice is to start the network in byron and move through the era's until Alonzo is reached. This is what IOHK seems to do when they launch a new testnet (from part of their new purple testnet announcement, "*Please allow ten hours for the network to be ready to test against. This will mean we have **made the network move through all the eras to Alonzo** correctly*".  
  
I have tried to reach out to IOHK for an answer to this but have not received a response back yet - I understand that they are pretty busy right now so i figured I would ask here...  
  
The reason I would like to know is because I am working with one of the IOHK partners and we are trying to create an in-house, automatic, private blockchain tool - similiar to Ganache for Ethereum. We CAN currently start a private network in Alonzo which would make this task relatively simple but with the current best practice to start from Byron and progress to Alonzo, I would like to know what exactly we are giving up in functionality (or anything else) by directly starting in Alonzo instead?

**Tags:** testnet
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.  
> **username_0**: Simply, What functionality do you loose by starting a private network in the Alonzo era vs starting a private network in the Byron era and updating to Alonzo through update proposals?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2021-08-28. Score: 0

I received a message from Samuel Leathers about this issue. I am re-posting his response but if anyone would like to add additional information, please feel free to expand on the idiosyncrasies that Sam is talking about:

> 2 things:
>
> db-sync doesn't work with the shortcut fork all eras in epoch 0 (yet, there's an
> open PR adding this finally)
>
> The protocol version will still be 2 if you fork everything at once.
> This is something we've reported to the devs to get fixed later, but
> essentially, even if you do have the config fork all eras (in 0 or sequentially)
> you still need to submit update proposals every epoch to get it updated to 5.
> There are some weird idiosyncrasies that can happen if era is Alonzo but
> protocol version is less than 5.


---

