1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <yanmaani@cock.li>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9423AC000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6C881ABB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cock.li
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8yKAJZj6nS8t
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.cock.li (mail.cock.li [37.120.193.124])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310AA81AAD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail;
t=1634483681; bh=3aW7VTEmUtplctMXTXo8knR3MkGhvWo/ZCSt33qOohA=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=eooonMJoqaaLGKWdV6Y1tIriqRoWzs6Brg/gK/RIAPKHniQSTeZRrP8ZPs8iX0G7k
iEq5LT8sdc03/oVwsU+wTRQ+1bYSvVHm0U3FbkKNcFHmej3iXq50KID4E2lxoMkr9c
/C260SBhBjk3D0r3ygT12DhhUg+x4wKv+8ncn6l2YR6nkv9fhGVC0sAIwsUd4VrcGf
wm9+TkVLWRgF0JMeR0ePWdpEa4mqPLy0BDQexr4RQJt1pVcilIlGqbajcZlAQwhPlg
+aiebJNV1h7SDef86oPIZqfk1evD+5Z2fk0wSw5Y7+PKuWaLUxGQ9DNMDwFLdWXIry
i/58qtXnnXHEw==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:41 +0000
From: yanmaani@cock.li
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
In-Reply-To: <143289360-eb35e705fded3eb4175a6f8d7669b3a0@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
References: <143289360-eb35e705fded3eb4175a6f8d7669b3a0@pmq5v.m5r2.onet>
Message-ID: <0d0b22a297d112939e11c86aa1f6d736@cock.li>
X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.16
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:28:28 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:14:51 -0000
What, no. The `k` value is calculated implicitly, because there's only
one value of it that could ever be valid - if `k` is 1 too small, we're
70 years too far back, and then the block will violate median of last
11. If `k` is 1 too large, we're 70 years too far in the future, then
the block will violate 2 hour rule. Nothing is added to coinbase or
anywhere else.
It's possible that you'd need some extra logic for locktime, yes, but it
would only be a problem in very special cases. Worst-case, you'll have
to use block time locking in the years around the switch, or softfork in
64-bit locking.
But unless I'm missing something, 32-bit would be enough, you just
wouldn't be able to locktime something past the timestamp for the
switch. After the switchover, everything would be back to normal.
This is a hardfork, yes, but it's a hardfork that kicks in way into the
future. And because it's a hardfork, you might as well do anything, as
long as it doesn't change anything now.
On 2021-10-15 22:22, vjudeu@gazeta.pl wrote:
> Your solution seems to solve the problem of chain halting, but there
> are more issues. For example: if you have some time modulo 2^32, then
> you no longer know if timestamp zero is related to 1970 or 2106 or
> some higher year. Your "k" value representing in fact the most
> significant 32 bits of 64-bit timestamp has to be stored in all cases
> where time is used. If there is no "k", then zero should be used for
> backward compatibility. Skipping "k" could cause problems related to
> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY or nLockTime, because if some transaction was
> timestamped to 0xbadc0ded, then that transaction will be valid in
> 0x00000000badc0ded, invalid in 0x0000000100000000, and valid again in
> 0x00000001badc0ded, the same for timelocked outputs.
>
> So, I think your "k" value should be added to the coinbase
> transaction, then you can combine two 32-bit values, the lower bits
> from the block header and the higher bits from the coinbase
> transaction. Also, adding your "k" value transaction nLockTime field
> is needed (maybe in a similar way as transaction witness was added in
> Segwit), because in other case after reaching 0x0000000100000000 all
> off-chain transactions with timelocks around 0x00000000ffffffff will
> be additionally timelocked for the next N years. The same is needed
> for each OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, maybe pushing high 32 bits before the
> currently used value will solve that (and assuming zero if there is
> only some 32-bit value).
|
