1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15741C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35B140106
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id bHAjlGnNRV64
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F4030400E1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:46 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1634338911;
bh=op7oFtIQLhTw3X+fEszB0JRRF6lapPOkeEmvw+iA8Nk=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=chLXUY2z/+QIju+2OGdS31DIQ/MsQtdbBohx0X9EdIw2u9fbOJnU4iU77N/EksFuN
t+3l15LvYzc5hE2ND7kNx8c4iE6tjdF9C58gSLvMvZJGhcPXFTNJLSb3eAqApV3GiK
tHBtn42SSG514k03WkrtNByKmcerUqTjoTOlhROM=
To: "yanmaani@cock.li" <yanmaani@cock.li>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <nSiUl71p9JyISxvRJ3Jq71zNahe-rpanbFFv1MSHSk7rUKjq36yD7vmrJQ5Pnh5oUdDAFflgSzbCE5KK7RacFRepvjqFc9xp9qT7hU-twXA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5978620b3db064897840b6170eed25d2@cock.li>
References: <50769965-423dd279413d4dba11ba459cbd98387b@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
<5978620b3db064897840b6170eed25d2@cock.li>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:55 -0000
Good morning yanmaani,
> It's well-known. Nobody really cares, because it's so far off. Not
> possible to do by softfork, no.
I think it is possible by softfork if we try hard enough?
> 1. The block timestamp may not be lower than the median of the last 11
> blocks'
>
> 2. The block timestamp may not be greater than the current time plus two
> hours
>
> 3. The block timestamp may not be greater than 2^32 (Sun, 07 Feb 2106
> 06:28:16 +0000)
What happens if a series of blocks has a timestamp of 0xFFFFFFFF at the app=
ropriate time?
In that case:
1. Is not violated, since "not lower than" means "greater than or equal to=
", and after a while the median becomes 0xFFFFFFFF and 0xFFFFFFFF =3D=3D 0x=
FFFFFFFF
2. Is not violated, since it would be a past actual real time.
3. Is not violated since 0xFFFFFFFF < 0x100000000.
In that case, we could then add an additional rule, which is that a 64-bit =
(or 128-bit, or 256-bit) timestamp has to be present in the coinbase transa=
ction, with similar rules except translated to 64-bit/128-bit/256-bit.
Possibly a similar scheme could be used for `nLockTime`; we could put a 64-=
bit `nLockTime64` in that additional signed block in Taproot SegWit v1 if t=
he legacy v`nLockTime` is at the maximum seconds-timelock possible.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
