public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: yanmaani@cock.li
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:41 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d0b22a297d112939e11c86aa1f6d736@cock.li> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <143289360-eb35e705fded3eb4175a6f8d7669b3a0@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>

What, no. The `k` value is calculated implicitly, because there's only 
one value of it that could ever be valid - if `k` is 1 too small, we're 
70 years too far back, and then the block will violate median of last 
11. If `k` is 1 too large, we're 70 years too far in the future, then 
the block will violate 2 hour rule. Nothing is added to coinbase or 
anywhere else.

It's possible that you'd need some extra logic for locktime, yes, but it 
would only be a problem in very special cases. Worst-case, you'll have 
to use block time locking in the years around the switch, or softfork in 
64-bit locking.

But unless I'm missing something, 32-bit would be enough, you just 
wouldn't be able to locktime something past the timestamp for the 
switch. After the switchover, everything would be back to normal.

This is a hardfork, yes, but it's a hardfork that kicks in way into the 
future. And because it's a hardfork, you might as well do anything, as 
long as it doesn't change anything now.

On 2021-10-15 22:22, vjudeu@gazeta.pl wrote:
> Your solution seems to solve the problem of chain halting, but there
> are more issues. For example: if you have some time modulo 2^32, then
> you no longer know if timestamp zero is related to 1970 or 2106 or
> some higher year. Your "k" value representing in fact the most
> significant 32 bits of 64-bit timestamp has to be stored in all cases
> where time is used. If there is no "k", then zero should be used for
> backward compatibility. Skipping "k" could cause problems related to
> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY or nLockTime, because if some transaction was
> timestamped to 0xbadc0ded, then that transaction will be valid in
> 0x00000000badc0ded, invalid in 0x0000000100000000, and valid again in
> 0x00000001badc0ded, the same for timelocked outputs.
> 
> So, I think your "k" value should be added to the coinbase
> transaction, then you can combine two 32-bit values, the lower bits
> from the block header and the higher bits from the coinbase
> transaction. Also, adding your "k" value transaction nLockTime field
> is needed (maybe in a similar way as transaction witness was added in
> Segwit), because in other case after reaching 0x0000000100000000 all
> off-chain transactions with timelocks around 0x00000000ffffffff will
> be additionally timelocked for the next N years. The same is needed
> for each OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, maybe pushing high 32 bits before the
> currently used value will solve that (and assuming zero if there is
> only some 32-bit value).


  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-17 15:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-13 19:16 [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting vjudeu
2021-10-15 15:27 ` James Lu
2021-10-17  8:19   ` Kate Salazar
2021-10-17 22:38   ` damian
2021-10-15 15:44 ` yanmaani
2021-10-15 22:22   ` vjudeu
2021-10-17 15:14     ` yanmaani [this message]
2021-10-17 15:46       ` Kate Salazar
2021-10-18  2:55         ` yanmaani
2021-10-15 23:01   ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-10-16  9:06     ` vjudeu
2021-10-16 20:37       ` David Bakin
2021-10-16 21:34         ` Kate Salazar
2021-10-16 23:23       ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-10-17  7:24 vjudeu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0d0b22a297d112939e11c86aa1f6d736@cock.li \
    --to=yanmaani@cock.li \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=vjudeu@gazeta.pl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox