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
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1UaE2F-00022k-VY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 May 2013 23:44:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.112 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.112; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail148112.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.112])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UaE2E-0004FB-Mw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 May 2013 23:44:35 +0000
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt9.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id
r48NiRtB012481; Thu, 9 May 2013 00:44:27 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r48NiNFY029887
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Thu, 9 May 2013 00:44:25 +0100 (BST)
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 19:44:22 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Addy Yeow <ayeowch@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130508234422.GA30870@savin>
References: <CAA3bHnwWHAmvF3vWwakJXKBt9y6b1u0cc7j4AbQBCOy-h3a1XA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA3bHnwWHAmvF3vWwakJXKBt9y6b1u0cc7j4AbQBCOy-h3a1XA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 37c83bd4-b839-11e2-b10b-0025903375e2
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdgsUFVQNAgsB AmUbW1ReVFl7W2U7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsqBRR/ X2BoOxlwfg1OfzB2 ZUVrEHNcD0x5JxJ5
XxxcFmQbZGY1an1N UUAKagNUcgZDfhxG bVUqVj1vNG8XDQg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBJSBS WgQAK04nCR1RViAn D05eWD8uAQUZRiA+
NAAvL0ZUEkccNkkp WQAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1019:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1UaE2E-0004FB-Mw
Cc: 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: Wed, 08 May 2013 23:44:36 -0000
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:39:10AM +1000, Addy Yeow wrote:
> Hi list,
>=20
> Can someone explain why do we have 32-bit and 64-bit timestamp fields
> instead of all being 64-bit?
>=20
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
Who knows?
Satoshi used 32-bits and those fields can't be changed now without every
single Bitcoin user changing all at once. (a "hard-fork" change)
We'll probably need to do one of those eventually for other reasons, so
we might as well leave fixing the timestamps until then.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000002a9a85a940c4da2951c3e91a043a44805fa286b336364d9daa
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRiuNWAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7w4IH/01m3WjgcjeJgHVAAxVIXFdm
8cSK1e/Gf0jUMg5BBae6baxiuJPgxFyB5U+ojjtSLefXtWfFMuYUor4Ci+0PAr7g
EZN3gEYBOg41BBv6tAKs8ztipBw0kx8+fL0vcktRHCb5QpkMuRucpqbBLEq4LnQE
UOsmwv6ejsprE41NICfRrSKWbUHMRcUsIJSOoWIf7YJ2cSru3XunaYtQ7FvIAkQ7
+koEUz0CigFiWRmHMNjpvIoGnvklqlMa5yJt4bcXw3KpEMtMWARP11uPqeIXJey+
wq09eK2/mtT5ITf7e2/CUxMHIfAwc+/HkWRZ3BMvBsXCnu/B+pVtbLlq7slm6bs=
=mJXa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr--
|
