From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 32 vs 64-bit timestamp fields
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 22:42:44 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130509024244.GA5474@savin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UWBrc8VfHvmmKHoDH_D9G5_nPir8sLdYYF4ybsz3STD0A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:33:11AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > Remember that interpreting the timestamp on a block for the purposes of
> > timestamping is a lot more subtle than it appears at first.
>
> I actually just meant how Pieter Wuille was talking about a blocktime accurate
> to only within 18 hours. :) But it is a nice writeup!
>
> In any case, for many things simple relative ordering is enough rather than
> absolute time.
Ah, shoot, I just realized we both got missed Pieter's point entirely:
he means to change the meaning of the header timestamp to be relative
time passed since the last block...
Well, it was a nice writeup! Thanks for the correction re:
probabalistic; you are absolutely correct.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000fb6d0ed7479069edef10b8bc598783e9d94bdb5cf9ae6a5f1c
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-09 2:42 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
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 [this message]
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=20130509024244.GA5474@savin \
--to=pete@petertodd.org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=john.dillon892@googlemail.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