From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UaSxl-0000OZ-NI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 May 2013 15:40:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UaSxk-0002Ec-Qt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 May 2013 15:40:57 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n12so3627074oag.17 for ; Thu, 09 May 2013 08:40:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.97.232 with SMTP id ed8mr4550062oeb.141.1368114051338; Thu, 09 May 2013 08:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.162.230 with HTTP; Thu, 9 May 2013 08:40:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130509111247.GA18521@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: <20130508234422.GA30870@savin> <20130509011338.GA8708@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <20130509015731.GA26423@savin> <20130509024244.GA5474@savin> <20130509111247.GA18521@vps7135.xlshosting.net> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 17:40:51 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ujp6rUj0_IX4L5MaF4FPk9RJ4kA Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UaSxk-0002Ec-Qt Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 15:40:57 -0000 2038 issues only apply to use of signed timestamps, I thought we treat this field as unsigned? Is it really a big deal? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:42:44PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: >> 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... > > No, though that's also a possibility, but a backward-incompatible one. > > What I mean is have a well-defined 64-bit timestamp for each block, but > only put the lowest 32 bit in the header. Under the condition: > > * There is never a gap of more than 136 years between two blocks. > > The actual 64-bit timestamp can be deterministically derived from the > header, by prefixing it with the lowest 32-bit value that does not > cause the result to violate the > at-least-above-the-median-of-the-previous-11-blocks rule. > > -- > Pieter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and > their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed > leaders in the field. The early access version is available now. > Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development