path: root/08/a1ba5cd7a29db958635fb7aac68d7553075acf

Return-Path: <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DBAC000D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:47:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD8681C6E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:47:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 OReDT0700XUN
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:46:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3658B81C67
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:46:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id s64so2209772yba.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 08:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=1bIcBMro4BveLKecMnCtP7vEIEE3aWgfKMp6jHiMeTk=;
 b=lykm3g0BAe4X0Z0lvR6IJmwsLGqfYXrdJaIWKPmxA9gklDknsJFvqDvzGUJuXjlyrR
 a1LrpS4oL5mhBfPmq8/+izjcSm4R/wiLdJfYr0d7h/o1qqnteiGRLymDTMMRCwzR68Y0
 m8UmS/fwsTrbNHYbSGzNHX8Cx2UzozEaJbqihx5O4VcyigkwqZi6oFmqLnyiswghauwx
 HTqsfgJTYF1C7FpSIF39b1V/IsRwRlNJfxB/GDb0OmNJzG2zbC5zYvgr6LYaNts0+tiC
 BAheg1ajQR+Z5Jm5rJlIfdndiLUk2lhYuhnhxe2DEDDw4qg5S4rWR9pWm3IeC7A/h/BO
 tbLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=1bIcBMro4BveLKecMnCtP7vEIEE3aWgfKMp6jHiMeTk=;
 b=eMKSHaBWyWa85/jjN1ThhUcezWyPjD2eoXBPF93TQvCKVKYa9VvpZjk7odAEEFoDdK
 arkNVzl3PoI7LlP2Sdk3LkJth3La1k0EPbZ+jJx0nnph2UXLpN/pubbd84ZCBKwlPKbw
 5mw3xvzZ5fTA6kNU2Ugfm/PvK9XMGjaatpsxf5EE+MNDYyA8RMmyKxY2iJVTlML54aaA
 CJGwQ12lq0vAihubsDvAIdYiJXCm4bzarDoqJtWw/Ek0rTMKkIiHuw7nhDabqwr6IrK8
 6/DhBaBSIS4ZsT1wf1wvMjgEouE5cxE9A0DTj7lp6ERe9qQvqaKDRMldr2U8g/YPdagz
 oLKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bJP8VK2lEpKDcze09VGXPfBtW1v4RGZVmJXOYL0BPMCNVEK0T
 meFehx72rc5E9+Xhuv96HH43NIurxKn2ZLYCLaE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkyGUwMO8EoI6WoO0xJjr6rF0z7eaN6umdbSixBE0BiE9R9zrBHQ8IFskHTOpo3XHuI2vKoV4tmM6yjyuUcns=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1ac6:: with SMTP id
 a189mr24281465yba.149.1634485618109; 
 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 08:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <143289360-eb35e705fded3eb4175a6f8d7669b3a0@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
 <0d0b22a297d112939e11c86aa1f6d736@cock.li>
In-Reply-To: <0d0b22a297d112939e11c86aa1f6d736@cock.li>
From: Kate Salazar <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 17:46:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHiDt8BY1dT=PhjudHbJS01eqm=So7Q1tvo8ft9sFLT=D33Kfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: yanmaani@cock.li, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a871da05ce8e569b"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 16:12:33 +0000
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: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:47:00 -0000

--000000000000a871da05ce8e569b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi yanmaani

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:28 PM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> What, no. The `k` value is calculated implicitly, because there's only
> one value of it that could ever be valid - if `k` is 1 too small, we're
> 70 years too far back, and then the block will violate median of last
> 11. If `k` is 1 too large, we're 70 years too far in the future, then
> the block will violate 2 hour rule. Nothing is added to coinbase or
> anywhere else.
>
> It's possible that you'd need some extra logic for locktime, yes, but it
> would only be a problem in very special cases. Worst-case, you'll have
> to use block time locking in the years around the switch, or softfork in
> 64-bit locking.
>
> But unless I'm missing something, 32-bit would be enough, you just
> wouldn't be able to locktime something past the timestamp for the
> switch. After the switchover, everything would be back to normal.
>
> This is a hardfork, yes, but it's a hardfork that kicks in way into the
> future. And because it's a hardfork, you might as well do anything, as
> long as it doesn't change anything now.
>

"Anything" is quite a word.
Ideally, hard fork requires upgrading every node that can be upgraded,
or at least have the node operator's consent to lose the node (for every
node that can't be upgraded).


>
> On 2021-10-15 22:22, vjudeu@gazeta.pl wrote:
> > Your solution seems to solve the problem of chain halting, but there
> > are more issues. For example: if you have some time modulo 2^32, then
> > you no longer know if timestamp zero is related to 1970 or 2106 or
> > some higher year. Your "k" value representing in fact the most
> > significant 32 bits of 64-bit timestamp has to be stored in all cases
> > where time is used. If there is no "k", then zero should be used for
> > backward compatibility. Skipping "k" could cause problems related to
> > OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY or nLockTime, because if some transaction was
> > timestamped to 0xbadc0ded, then that transaction will be valid in
> > 0x00000000badc0ded, invalid in 0x0000000100000000, and valid again in
> > 0x00000001badc0ded, the same for timelocked outputs.
> >
> > So, I think your "k" value should be added to the coinbase
> > transaction, then you can combine two 32-bit values, the lower bits
> > from the block header and the higher bits from the coinbase
> > transaction. Also, adding your "k" value transaction nLockTime field
> > is needed (maybe in a similar way as transaction witness was added in
> > Segwit), because in other case after reaching 0x0000000100000000 all
> > off-chain transactions with timelocks around 0x00000000ffffffff will
> > be additionally timelocked for the next N years. The same is needed
> > for each OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, maybe pushing high 32 bits before the
> > currently used value will solve that (and assuming zero if there is
> > only some 32-bit value).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000a871da05ce8e569b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi yanmaani</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:28 PM yanmaani--=
- via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">What, no. The `k` value is calcula=
ted implicitly, because there&#39;s only <br>
one value of it that could ever be valid - if `k` is 1 too small, we&#39;re=
 <br>
70 years too far back, and then the block will violate median of last <br>
11. If `k` is 1 too large, we&#39;re 70 years too far in the future, then <=
br>
the block will violate 2 hour rule. Nothing is added to coinbase or <br>
anywhere else.<br>
<br>
It&#39;s possible that you&#39;d need some extra logic for locktime, yes, b=
ut it <br>
would only be a problem in very special cases. Worst-case, you&#39;ll have =
<br>
to use block time locking in the years around the switch, or softfork in <b=
r>
64-bit locking.<br>
<br>
But unless I&#39;m missing something, 32-bit would be enough, you just <br>
wouldn&#39;t be able to locktime something past the timestamp for the <br>
switch. After the switchover, everything would be back to normal.<br>
<br>
This is a hardfork, yes, but it&#39;s a hardfork that kicks in way into the=
 <br>
future. And because it&#39;s a hardfork, you might as well do anything, as =
<br>
long as it doesn&#39;t change anything now.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>=
<div>&quot;Anything&quot; is quite a word.</div><div>Ideally, hard fork req=
uires upgrading every node that can be upgraded,<br></div><div>or at least =
have the node operator&#39;s consent to lose the node (for every</div><div>=
node that can&#39;t be upgraded).</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On 2021-10-15 22:22, <a href=3D"mailto:vjudeu@gazeta.pl" target=3D"_blank">=
vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a> wrote:<br>
&gt; Your solution seems to solve the problem of chain halting, but there<b=
r>
&gt; are more issues. For example: if you have some time modulo 2^32, then<=
br>
&gt; you no longer know if timestamp zero is related to 1970 or 2106 or<br>
&gt; some higher year. Your &quot;k&quot; value representing in fact the mo=
st<br>
&gt; significant 32 bits of 64-bit timestamp has to be stored in all cases<=
br>
&gt; where time is used. If there is no &quot;k&quot;, then zero should be =
used for<br>
&gt; backward compatibility. Skipping &quot;k&quot; could cause problems re=
lated to<br>
&gt; OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY or nLockTime, because if some transaction was<b=
r>
&gt; timestamped to 0xbadc0ded, then that transaction will be valid in<br>
&gt; 0x00000000badc0ded, invalid in 0x0000000100000000, and valid again in<=
br>
&gt; 0x00000001badc0ded, the same for timelocked outputs.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; So, I think your &quot;k&quot; value should be added to the coinbase<b=
r>
&gt; transaction, then you can combine two 32-bit values, the lower bits<br=
>
&gt; from the block header and the higher bits from the coinbase<br>
&gt; transaction. Also, adding your &quot;k&quot; value transaction nLockTi=
me field<br>
&gt; is needed (maybe in a similar way as transaction witness was added in<=
br>
&gt; Segwit), because in other case after reaching 0x0000000100000000 all<b=
r>
&gt; off-chain transactions with timelocks around 0x00000000ffffffff will<b=
r>
&gt; be additionally timelocked for the next N years. The same is needed<br=
>
&gt; for each OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, maybe pushing high 32 bits before the=
<br>
&gt; currently used value will solve that (and assuming zero if there is<br=
>
&gt; only some 32-bit value).<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000a871da05ce8e569b--