This is where my thoughts are going and why I ask if adapting the tool or starting a network with free resources is the priority.
Starting a network manually without the use of the tool is perfectly doable and relatively easy but it will require some collaboration in getting the first few nodes running.
Exactly. Something that can get explored by say 5-6 or more of us sufficiently committed in a seperate thread perhaps?
A clear set of instructions to bootstrap a testnet would definitely be a much easier path than adapting the testnet tool. It was actually your going through the sn_testnet_tool path @Josh that made me think this might be the way.
Manually launching a bootstrap node plus a few more nodes through a set of commands should definitely be not too hard.
Question about how many nodes could safely run on a free instance is still relevant though.
If network can be started by adding nodes one-by-one, then it is interesting possibility, which should be explored.
We may find more bugs this way. And can hope that developers will find them interesting enough to start the chase.
We’ll just need to suck it and see - once we have standardised centralised ( 
) logging in place.
Disclaimer: I did something daft last night and have broken my barebones ELK stack - actually the underlying k8s and etcd - I’ll report back later.
This is how I did it prior to exploring the tool. Definitely possible, I shared a couple of networks started this way on the forum in the past which others joined so it creates a usable network.
I mean that it may be possible for user #1 to add node #1, for user #2 to add node #2 … until network can be considered as “started”.
No specialized hosting will be required in such case.
Client Version: version.Info{Major:“1”, Minor:“22”, GitVersion:“v1.22.2”
Still not got the server running again after messing up etcd somehow and several re installs
Been even more distracted than usual, Don’t tell @Sascha but I was stuffing a chicken 
Trad skirlie with extra garlic and thyme seeing you asked , thanks
They call you for a chat about what your doing with it.
Ego te absolvo. 
To which the only answer is " World domination, baby"
That’s Latin for “Don’t forget to add extra garlic” yes?
No standard Ubuntu apt-get etc etc
Much googling but I cannot find a reliable matrix of supported Kubernetes and Docker versions that play nicely. I have this horrible dread Im going to have to roll back to earlier versions.
It was that or tell them so I can look at porn hub in Saudi 
Busty Burqa Babes?
The idea of using these guys resources to help the Safenetwork actually intrugues me… 
The company I work for paid these f*rs more than 2M to develop something that looks like it’s coming straight from the '80…
Do ut des
That’s what I would tell them if they called me…
Just to offer a bit of a pointer. My advice would be to concentrate more on understanding ELK. When it comes to Kubernetes, DO and all other cloud providers offer hosted versions of it, so you won’t need to do any of your own cluster setup. The cluster will be created using Terraform, but the provider will do all the setup for you.
You can then use Helm to setup the containers on Kubernetes that are needed for ELK.
It’s interesting to setup your own cluster just to understand how Kubernetes actually works, but that’s a little bit of a red herring at this point and not really too important for getting our ELK setup running.
And this is something I think the BGF could be used for, rather than for just simply running nodes.