📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15
📝 Original message:Good morning yanmaani,
> It's well-known. Nobody really cares, because it's so far off. Not
> possible to do by softfork, no.
I think it is possible by softfork if we try hard enough?
> 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)
What happens if a series of blocks has a timestamp of 0xFFFFFFFF at the appropriate time?
In that case:
1. Is not violated, since "not lower than" means "greater than or equal to", and after a while the median becomes 0xFFFFFFFF and 0xFFFFFFFF == 0xFFFFFFFF
2. Is not violated, since it would be a past actual real time.
3. Is not violated since 0xFFFFFFFF < 0x100000000.
In that case, we could then add an additional rule, which is that a 64-bit (or 128-bit, or 256-bit) timestamp has to be present in the coinbase transaction, with similar rules except translated to 64-bit/128-bit/256-bit.
Possibly a similar scheme could be used for `nLockTime`; we could put a 64-bit `nLockTime64` in that additional signed block in Taproot SegWit v1 if the legacy v`nLockTime` is at the maximum seconds-timelock possible.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5…3ms3l
2023-06-07 23:00:10
in reply to nevent1q…ga35
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-07 23:00:10Event JSON
{
"id": "237b34bec63fbdd9f7e4c2463d407b9779b9078a0c317a87ac962e84f29baa79",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686178810,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c0e13d397dc71c2d737cbe4277ed0c11fb0c8d97302650a28ed4170c1d01b58d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e4cf23dcfa1cf8a3d56e0d803573314a667b994fa7d23174ebd016041cf353c3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"8f5bcf9ba2de88dd877a672f629a5c6a7bebbeda3fa51324521e03863d8fe094"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15\n📝 Original message:Good morning yanmaani,\n\n\n\u003e It's well-known. Nobody really cares, because it's so far off. Not\n\u003e possible to do by softfork, no.\n\nI think it is possible by softfork if we try hard enough?\n\n\n\u003e 1. The block timestamp may not be lower than the median of the last 11\n\u003e blocks'\n\u003e\n\u003e 2. The block timestamp may not be greater than the current time plus two\n\u003e hours\n\u003e\n\u003e 3. The block timestamp may not be greater than 2^32 (Sun, 07 Feb 2106\n\u003e 06:28:16 +0000)\n\nWhat happens if a series of blocks has a timestamp of 0xFFFFFFFF at the appropriate time?\n\nIn that case:\n\n1. Is not violated, since \"not lower than\" means \"greater than or equal to\", and after a while the median becomes 0xFFFFFFFF and 0xFFFFFFFF == 0xFFFFFFFF\n2. Is not violated, since it would be a past actual real time.\n3. Is not violated since 0xFFFFFFFF \u003c 0x100000000.\n\nIn that case, we could then add an additional rule, which is that a 64-bit (or 128-bit, or 256-bit) timestamp has to be present in the coinbase transaction, with similar rules except translated to 64-bit/128-bit/256-bit.\n\nPossibly a similar scheme could be used for `nLockTime`; we could put a 64-bit `nLockTime64` in that additional signed block in Taproot SegWit v1 if the legacy v`nLockTime` is at the maximum seconds-timelock possible.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "19c84e86db766a4cba12915ca6326d603f52706cb39dc2427a6df690afe926d7c45f22aaf16b88872f379539c4cd50b43855cca05ef6b718fba67141e4bdabfa"
}