public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 32 vs 64-bit timestamp fields
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 03:13:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130509011338.GA8708@vps7135.xlshosting.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpf-A7z8ffbLjoRRuK56KHJ4xHUyNSca5yOJHx6tQB=T7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:08:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Dillon
> <john.dillon892@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps Satoshi did this delibrately, knowing that at some point a hard-fork
> > would be a good idea, so that we all would have a good excuse to do one?
> 
> Guffaw :)  The year 2038 is so far in the future that it is not really
> relevant, from that angle.

"Meh". I think it's highly unlikely we'll break the block header format, as it
pretty much means invalidating all mining hardware.

There's also no need: 32 bits is plenty of precision. Hell, even 16 bits would
do (assuming there's never more than a 65535s (about 18 hours) gap between two
blocks). Just assume the "full" 64-bit time is the smallest one that makes
sense, given its lower 32 bits.

-- 
Pieter




  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-09  1:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-08 23:39 [Bitcoin-development] 32 vs 64-bit timestamp fields Addy Yeow
2013-05-08 23:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-05-08 23:44 ` Peter Todd
2013-05-09  1:00   ` John Dillon
2013-05-09  1:08     ` Jeff Garzik
2013-05-09  1:13       ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2013-05-09  1:27         ` John Dillon
2013-05-09  1:57           ` Peter Todd
2013-05-09  2:33             ` John Dillon
2013-05-09  2:42               ` Peter Todd
2013-05-09 11:12                 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-05-09 15:40                   ` Mike Hearn
2013-05-09 15:43                     ` Jeff Garzik

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=20130509011338.GA8708@vps7135.xlshosting.net \
    --to=pieter.wuille@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jgarzik@exmulti.com \
    /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