š
Original date posted:2013-05-08
š Original message:On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:33:11AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> > Remember that interpreting the timestamp on a block for the purposes of
> > timestamping is a lot more subtle than it appears at first.
>
> I actually just meant how Pieter Wuille was talking about a blocktime accurate
> to only within 18 hours. :) But it is a nice writeup!
>
> In any case, for many things simple relative ordering is enough rather than
> absolute time.
Ah, shoot, I just realized we both got missed Pieter's point entirely:
he means to change the meaning of the header timestamp to be relative
time passed since the last block...
Well, it was a nice writeup! Thanks for the correction re:
probabalistic; you are absolutely correct.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000fb6d0ed7479069edef10b8bc598783e9d94bdb5cf9ae6a5f1c
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130508/49ed01d1/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:01:34
in reply to nevent1qā¦6gfn
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:01:34Event JSON
{
"id": "3f3f56059ae8f47c4656cfbaa27fc51da47e0a31f45fa6dee918e22b96ce0de3",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686150094,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"94096a540659922fb308765fd366df049294303f58802ee2f87aef70df5f594b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2fb9b5ec6a1349aa6905577257a2089a578f445e659fe41eb8d9718e8a0daff3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2013-05-08\nš Original message:On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:33:11AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Remember that interpreting the timestamp on a block for the purposes of\n\u003e \u003e timestamping is a lot more subtle than it appears at first.\n\u003e \n\u003e I actually just meant how Pieter Wuille was talking about a blocktime accurate\n\u003e to only within 18 hours. :) But it is a nice writeup!\n\u003e \n\u003e In any case, for many things simple relative ordering is enough rather than\n\u003e absolute time.\n\nAh, shoot, I just realized we both got missed Pieter's point entirely:\nhe means to change the meaning of the header timestamp to be relative\ntime passed since the last block...\n\nWell, it was a nice writeup! Thanks for the correction re:\nprobabalistic; you are absolutely correct.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000fb6d0ed7479069edef10b8bc598783e9d94bdb5cf9ae6a5f1c\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130508/49ed01d1/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6a5002a64f034aa55e8845a0f1050753c6f9b5fccdd2c830e794cb31bb8a47d5b6fdfb53a9497ab9820413a9c7f8fc547fe39ed28bbafbf6bf1d9bb1a0abbb34"
}