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
|
Return-Path: <yanmaani@cock.li>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BC3C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Oct 2021 02:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A78F81AAC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Oct 2021 02:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cock.li
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hiD2Y6wMOOOo
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Oct 2021 02:55:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.cock.li (mail.cock.li [37.120.193.124])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7777181AAB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Oct 2021 02:55:40 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail;
t=1634525732; bh=nlORQPos3NSULrOgaR7QLhvLVQtpwo8thaODst3Rd8k=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=CTljZL8aoFUkKdjHfktCi0Z5h884/z1lXsbcK0hUC7V1XkQ1LYRTTsAhK+jwIUBvn
JlNAu8oLPMiFuqld1ho6h+JAueZDwdgj/P+f0yFrHtGge+qv9D6h1rXs81Mp3gSCdg
AySSMYP1pF1/IoQHh1pHL3/cHd4rze6/bAxzYEYGUDLSYgZ+DnpevQrSl13AaWrcpM
0pXTf+0JubL0lY+rC0emk2mH/CN5awIDt7gx5xtC1S1cLtZf9sly/CgbjJ+RgGfKoT
cuQqtuFYETubsMxKlnGW+bjWM1uOdE0yZ+VxYJwOwFQt8i7hprp1S+fKJXlsTTf+ze
po3NWlJjvsmIg==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 02:55:32 +0000
From: yanmaani@cock.li
To: Kate Salazar <mercedes.catherine.salazar@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHiDt8BY1dT=PhjudHbJS01eqm=So7Q1tvo8ft9sFLT=D33Kfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <143289360-eb35e705fded3eb4175a6f8d7669b3a0@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
<0d0b22a297d112939e11c86aa1f6d736@cock.li>
<CAHiDt8BY1dT=PhjudHbJS01eqm=So7Q1tvo8ft9sFLT=D33Kfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b421b8839b396e0ccc4f3a1c5aa627@cock.li>
X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.16
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:56:17 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting
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: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 02:55:48 -0000
Well, it's the right word. If you're going to do a hardfork by changing
the timestamp definition, you're already doing a hardfork. At that
point, you've already crossed the Rubicon and might as well put in any
other necessary changes (e.g. to transaction locking), because it will
be as much of a hardfork either way.
The important bit here is "as long as it doesn't change anything now" -
this is indeed a hardfork, but it's a timestamp-activated hardfork that
triggers in 2106. Until that point, it has absolutely no bearing on
consensus rules (as opposed to the other proposals, which are at least a
soft-fork today).
I understand that there's some problems in getting consensus for forks,
but surely we can agree that everyone will update their Bitcoin at least
once in the next 85 years? (If they don't, they're doomed anyway.)
On 2021-10-17 15:46, Kate Salazar wrote:
> Hi yanmaani
>
...
>> This is a hardfork, yes, but it's a hardfork that kicks in way into
>> the
>> future. And because it's a hardfork, you might as well do anything,
>> as
>> long as it doesn't change anything now.
>
> "Anything" is quite a word.
> Ideally, hard fork requires upgrading every node that can be upgraded,
>
> or at least have the node operator's consent to lose the node (for
> every
> node that can't be upgraded).
>
...
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
