Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15741C000D for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35B140106 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bHAjlGnNRV64 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F4030400E1 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:46 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1634338911; bh=op7oFtIQLhTw3X+fEszB0JRRF6lapPOkeEmvw+iA8Nk=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=chLXUY2z/+QIju+2OGdS31DIQ/MsQtdbBohx0X9EdIw2u9fbOJnU4iU77N/EksFuN t+3l15LvYzc5hE2ND7kNx8c4iE6tjdF9C58gSLvMvZJGhcPXFTNJLSb3eAqApV3GiK tHBtn42SSG514k03WkrtNByKmcerUqTjoTOlhROM= To: "yanmaani@cock.li" , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5978620b3db064897840b6170eed25d2@cock.li> References: <50769965-423dd279413d4dba11ba459cbd98387b@pmq6v.m5r2.onet> <5978620b3db064897840b6170eed25d2@cock.li> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:01:55 -0000 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 app= ropriate 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 =3D=3D 0x= FFFFFFFF 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 transa= ction, 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 t= he legacy v`nLockTime` is at the maximum seconds-timelock possible. Regards, ZmnSCPxj