Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 03:13:39 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Message-ID: <20130509011338.GA8708@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CAA3bHnwWHAmvF3vWwakJXKBt9y6b1u0cc7j4AbQBCOy-h3a1XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130508234422.GA30870@savin>
	<CAPaL=UVNSM1W-vDt_kWUprMCt_LVTHfdiUkf0Aem1FAoD+4Qxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8xBpf-A7z8ffbLjoRRuK56KHJ4xHUyNSca5yOJHx6tQB=T7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpf-A7z8ffbLjoRRuK56KHJ4xHUyNSca5yOJHx6tQB=T7A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 32 vs 64-bit timestamp fields
Precedence: list

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@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