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
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CAA3bHnwWHAmvF3vWwakJXKBt9y6b1u0cc7j4AbQBCOy-h3a1XA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130508234422.GA30870@savin>
<CAPaL=UVNSM1W-vDt_kWUprMCt_LVTHfdiUkf0Aem1FAoD+4Qxw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpf-A7z8ffbLjoRRuK56KHJ4xHUyNSca5yOJHx6tQB=T7A@mail.gmail.com>
<20130509011338.GA8708@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CAPaL=UW_uvMpLx2sv4o3yONcAnY8xwLQWT2Act6por7CdHBJNw@mail.gmail.com>
<20130509015731.GA26423@savin>
<CAPaL=UWBrc8VfHvmmKHoDH_D9G5_nPir8sLdYYF4ybsz3STD0A@mail.gmail.com>
<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: <CANEZrP3Ja7ZAh65yJvH+juPkOF2-qxSxHKz+Zp_5hH6Hw9yyZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> 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
|
