From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB042C000D for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9098332A for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lC6WZZpRhMH1 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4327.protonmail.ch (mail-4327.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.27]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD17483313 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-0301.mail-europe.com (mail-0301.mail-europe.com [188.165.51.139]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail-4321.protonmail.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HWzj13P2Cz4x4rl for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail-4321.protonmail.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.b="EPg9c4wu" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1634426602; bh=AffZz6ohRc9sTzrhqDKhccgxOFGzsSMCGfK2hhEf0VM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=EPg9c4wuaVYCsjVBzv9esIjdXOAMUnExKn9E2liP1G73WE9DbtqvJsBcqMHw9Cp2c 1FGAUxhIBZLgf9kXJAhpIg3opD5nwOdIBBgG2kyKtxecijqPRj0eQ3izcuS9gzexuV hIYzPysqGjzJ1a0Fc9MgYEiXWdiHNEA93bZcJPAE= To: "vjudeu@gazeta.pl" From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <143903239-0c7634127ba6ddee7e69b14740b993cd@pmq3v.m5r2.onet> References: <143903239-0c7634127ba6ddee7e69b14740b993cd@pmq3v.m5r2.onet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:23:36 -0000 Good morning vjudeu, > > What happens if a series of blocks has a timestamp of 0xFFFFFFFF at the= appropriate time? > > The chain will halt for all old clients, because there is no 32-bit value= greater than 0xffffffff. > > > 1. Is not violated, since "not lower than" means "greater than or equa= l to" > > No, because it has to be strictly "greater than" in the Bitcoin Core sour= ce code, it is rejected when it is "lower or equal to", see:https://github.= com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6f0cbc75be7644c276650fd98bfdb6358b827399/src/valid= ation.cpp#L3089-L3094 Then starting at Unix Epoch 0x80000000, post-softfork nodes just increment = the timestamp by 1 on each new block. This just kicks the can since that then imposes a limit on the maximum numb= er of blocks, but at least the unit is now ~10 minutes instead of 1 second,= a massive x600 increase in the amount of time we are forced to hardfork. On the other hand, this does imply that the difficulty calculation will bec= ome astronomically and ludicrously high, since pre-softfork nodes will thin= k that blocks are arriving at the rate of 1 per second, so ... Regards, ZmnSCPxj