From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51B2C000D for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:24:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D9760671 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:24:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MsKcuxn2-ZZL for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:24:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from smtpo79.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo79.poczta.onet.pl [141.105.16.29]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D1C605F4 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:24:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq8v.m5r2.onet (pmq8v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.145]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4HXBNF0W38zlgMTm; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:24:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013; t=1634455485; bh=owKpP6pv8MkVpP8INRcCizdzTH2GcTbOsxYtghXet1k=; h=From:Cc:To:Date:Subject:From; b=r/Vciff/ONNvOPwVjrABubRMPIL5Cvq1yxBkA/NweGSg6NjTzTTxlbPRsT20azsBJ HL3cXAC6069R14jlc5T1/Ikq3A7wxEULUHIAz9rpz9/ajnbYvZ5EYEOo6F4A/pm6b9 z3Dy7Ajpret+lUfVTnlLijMJHCR601rQ7xtjAJeA= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [5.173.13.16] by pmq8v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:24:45 +0200 From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl X-Priority: 3 To: ZmnSCPxj Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:24:43 +0200 Message-Id: <118811322-c002f9f41f003a55807feca44f9160a2@pmq8v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;5.173.13.16;PL;3 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:27:42 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:24:54 -0000 > Then starting at Unix Epoch 0x80000000, post-softfork nodes just incremen= t the timestamp by 1 on each new block. It is possible to go even faster. The fastest rate is something like that, = if you assume the time in the Genesis Block is zero: 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 ... Then you can increment timestamps once per 6 blocks, that means x3600 incre= ase, but then the difficulty is always multiplied by four, so you have to i= ncrease time once per difficulty change to keep it on real level, then it w= ill wave between being multiplied by 4 and by 0.25. On 2021-10-17 01:23:24 user ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Good morning vjudeu, > > What happens if a series of blocks has a timestamp of 0xFFFFFFFF at the= appropriate time? > > The chain will halt for all old clients, because there is no 32-bit value= greater than 0xffffffff. > > > 1. Is not violated, since "not lower than" means "greater than or equa= l to" > > No, because it has to be strictly "greater than" in the Bitcoin Core sour= ce code, it is rejected when it is "lower or equal to", see:https://github.= com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6f0cbc75be7644c276650fd98bfdb6358b827399/src/valid= ation.cpp#L3089-L3094 Then starting at Unix Epoch 0x80000000, post-softfork nodes just increment = the timestamp by 1 on each new block. This just kicks the can since that then imposes a limit on the maximum numb= er of blocks, but at least the unit is now ~10 minutes instead of 1 second,= a massive x600 increase in the amount of time we are forced to hardfork. On the other hand, this does imply that the difficulty calculation will bec= ome astronomically and ludicrously high, since pre-softfork nodes will thin= k that blocks are arriving at the rate of 1 per second, so ... Regards, ZmnSCPxj