From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1UaFQb-0005SX-GA
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 09 May 2013 01:13:49 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1UaFQX-0001Kw-Uh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 09 May 2013 01:13:49 +0000
Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 1028433CE03; Thu,  9 May 2013 03:13:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 03:13:39 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Message-ID: <20130509011338.GA8708@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CAA3bHnwWHAmvF3vWwakJXKBt9y6b1u0cc7j4AbQBCOy-h3a1XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130508234422.GA30870@savin>
	<CAPaL=UVNSM1W-vDt_kWUprMCt_LVTHfdiUkf0Aem1FAoD+4Qxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8xBpf-A7z8ffbLjoRRuK56KHJ4xHUyNSca5yOJHx6tQB=T7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpf-A7z8ffbLjoRRuK56KHJ4xHUyNSca5yOJHx6tQB=T7A@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
	0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
	CUSTOM_MED
	-1.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED    ADSP custom_med hit,
	and not from a mailing list
X-Headers-End: 1UaFQX-0001Kw-Uh
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 32 vs 64-bit timestamp fields
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 01:13:49 -0000

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