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 ) id 1UaFDR-0005rA-32 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 May 2013 01:00:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.51; envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UaFDQ-0004Fa-3x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 May 2013 01:00:13 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b13so2407567wgh.18 for ; Wed, 08 May 2013 18:00:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.210.207 with SMTP id mw15mr4237317wic.10.1368061205934; Wed, 08 May 2013 18:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.135.239 with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 18:00:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130508234422.GA30870@savin> References: <20130508234422.GA30870@savin> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 01:00:05 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Dillon To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -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: 1UaFDQ-0004Fa-3x Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 01:00:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > 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. Perhaps Satoshi did this delibrately, knowing that at some point a hard-fork would be a good idea, so that we all would have a good excuse to do one? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRivT1AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPhxUH/271jtMvNrliZxFTvud282Dc snEieMig1p/HXy6ry1YLp+Q2k4Ya3QFFPlbsqHeTjL+NaJSGOHPBen4lpWahOH+T N6TQoOls7BMpQ7Y54Nqy5Qh9GeQnbDGcbQ8fBUfFqAF1Ljs0OBsbJtvC3vZTbYEn dwB+7dvPLGKVfz/yrR9wrLhDzoXHbG4C3sefqNnm+fkHHIuTy4nxwtVVMydlzerF Bwg1oc64dlul7sugBGXo2FjtGrxxkRxWWqj+dPgBnE/bDKIlemw34PtQZ2OK+IUS CH7Q0EGBnr7TpXJT5AOMkycd8v9MJ2wNIt4v3YLqyViQ48Q5coxAS0GepcRnbMU= =na4H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----