From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224142C for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:07:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66E013E for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93E7A38AB854; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:07:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:161214:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::oZ2+NGYVKTca402m:kDkm X-Hashcash: 1:25:161214:jl2012@xbt.hk::5Plblz8nv4FEW/nK:+s17 X-Hashcash: 1:25:161214:tomz@freedommail.ch::wPknKJooUQkUR86I:ccFJR From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Johnson Lau Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:07:14 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.36-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) References: <22457494.p1MjVfM24j@cherry> <8690A056-F1F9-480A-8C95-E1BF3D8417B2@xbt.hk> In-Reply-To: <8690A056-F1F9-480A-8C95-E1BF3D8417B2@xbt.hk> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201612141107.16613.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forcenet: an experimental network with a new header format X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:07:48 -0000 On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:01:58 AM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There is no reason to use a timestamp beyond 4 bytes. Actually, there is: lock times... my overflow solution doesn't have a solution to that. :x