📅 Original date posted:2013-05-08
📝 Original message:On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:08:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Dillon
> <john.dillon892 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Guffaw :) The year 2038 is so far in the future that it is not really
> relevant, from that angle.
"Meh". I think it's highly unlikely we'll break the block header format, as it
pretty much means invalidating all mining hardware.
There's also no need: 32 bits is plenty of precision. Hell, even 16 bits would
do (assuming there's never more than a 65535s (about 18 hours) gap between two
blocks). Just assume the "full" 64-bit time is the smallest one that makes
sense, given its lower 32 bits.
--
Pieter
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 15:01:32
in reply to nevent1q…2p3e
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 15:01:32Event JSON
{
"id": "4ff0bcdc8e7e458375c75dcda6f8082eebf0f6e16e0c67349978b3c4d5d37cc1",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686150092,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"94096a540659922fb308765fd366df049294303f58802ee2f87aef70df5f594b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"230817436ef433b33c7be30fb5ba6a4371e84a9d9a007d3ba43c3f8a9e87caf3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-05-08\n📝 Original message:On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:08:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Dillon\n\u003e \u003cjohn.dillon892 at googlemail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Perhaps Satoshi did this delibrately, knowing that at some point a hard-fork\n\u003e \u003e would be a good idea, so that we all would have a good excuse to do one?\n\u003e \n\u003e Guffaw :) The year 2038 is so far in the future that it is not really\n\u003e relevant, from that angle.\n\n\"Meh\". I think it's highly unlikely we'll break the block header format, as it\npretty much means invalidating all mining hardware.\n\nThere's also no need: 32 bits is plenty of precision. Hell, even 16 bits would\ndo (assuming there's never more than a 65535s (about 18 hours) gap between two\nblocks). Just assume the \"full\" 64-bit time is the smallest one that makes\nsense, given its lower 32 bits.\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "f473f61496e35d89a12029134cb73c0db6607705d32315a82974cbb55b992abea6c6d96382a6eaacff48619a286ce996690edeb03fdcc6eff5646603695c6ce6"
}