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
next prev parent 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