summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/12/ce201e2974381f5ad5170d86820b9b90c6fcfa
blob: 48fd878151191acf7d81a101fd9692d4ae9787f1 (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
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Return-Path: <yanmaani@cock.li>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D44C0051
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F46A20134
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id WpEWSklRkZN7
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:44:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:01 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.cock.li (mail.cock.li [37.120.193.124])
 by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C4342010F
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:44:53 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail;
 t=1600519007; bh=DACcdygWLylFEDVz6Hk9oB7JI2Z6BbL5IqkcqtzWXe0=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:From;
 b=WufS5gK1xWGVUvC4IuO/yIBjonJeq5YYwQfghnTQIRH7+Ga5NOFXIYnG43aHmNm0g
 +GGXScsz6avLrTJGixRnT6NnMyF3iGoQHzZAk61/5EoZ15A7+yNcM7uTBPJwLwxiEb
 gMz0AEsfyx2mnwuVkwHMNI+EcvumiU7xHzsfTmOZIYZ7CpG2ZkMMTYGpLyWoJouBnS
 7PVGadgqYMZ3Df7GmL2gqNFekodtvCi3hvOW5Mg+2jR8hf7LskA/mwG2mw8z02eCTU
 Me57+q5c0uGYe/S4e3x3xAzYwuQP/4GziJymckU0ejZP+ACaDVKhG7eoCSFaVC1VfS
 dNI4seyHjVDHA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:36:47 +0000
From: yanmaani@cock.li
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <42c7e76c023b403a9e99d29a1836b53e@cock.li>
X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.10
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 13:08:33 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Suggestion: Solve year 2106 problem by taking
	timestamps mod 2^32
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: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:44:55 -0000

Currently, Bitcoin's timestamp rules are as follows:

1. The block timestamp may not be lower than the median of the last 11 
blocks'
2. The block timestamp may not be greater than the current time plus two 
hours
3. The block timestamp may not be greater than 2^32 (Sun, 07 Feb 2106 
06:28:16 +0000)

Thus, Bitcoin will "die" on or about 2106-02-07, when there is no 
timestamp below 2^32 that exceeds the median of the last 11 blocks.

If the rules were changed to the following, this problem would be 
solved:

1. The block timestamp plus k*2^32 may not be lower than the median of 
the last 11 blocks'
2. The block timestamp plus k*2^32 may not be greater than the current 
time plus two hours
3. k is an integer, whose value must be the same for the calculations of 
Rule 1 and Rule 2

This would cause a hardfork in the year 2106, which is approximately 
85.5 years from now, by which time 95% of nodes would hopefully have 
updated.

Another proposed solution is 64-bit timestamps. They would break 
compatibility with other software that has specific expectations of 
header fields, like ASICs' firmware. They would also cause a hardfork 
before the date of timestamp overflow. I thus believe them to be a less 
appropriate solution.

What do you think of this idea? Is it worth a BIP?