blob: c1eaa9db42c7463158bbc2ea1010cf9ab9ac17e1 (
plain)
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <ayeowch@gmail.com>) id 1UaDxA-0001pJ-W2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 May 2013 23:39:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.52; envelope-from=ayeowch@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f52.google.com ([209.85.214.52])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UaDx6-00084n-Nq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 May 2013 23:39:20 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id q16so1154120bkw.25
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 May 2013 16:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.166.11 with SMTP id k11mr2512971bky.6.1368056350232;
Wed, 08 May 2013 16:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.203.15 with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 16:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:39:10 +1000
Message-ID: <CAA3bHnwWHAmvF3vWwakJXKBt9y6b1u0cc7j4AbQBCOy-h3a1XA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Addy Yeow <ayeowch@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(ayeowch[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1UaDx6-00084n-Nq
Subject: [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: Wed, 08 May 2013 23:39:21 -0000
Hi list,
Can someone explain why do we have 32-bit and 64-bit timestamp fields
instead of all being 64-bit?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
Cheers,
Addy
|
