Bitcoin Forum
March 01, 2021, 11:03:32 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 32Bit timestamps in the block headers?  (Read 1125 times)
mustyoshi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 287
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:11:21 PM
 #1

Why would Satoshi (group or indiv.) use 32 bit timestamps which would overflow before the last coin was designed to be minted?

The fix is simple, just up it to 64bit unsigned integers to represent the date.
1614639812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614639812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1614639812
Reply with quote  #2

1614639812
Report to moderator
1614639812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614639812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1614639812
Reply with quote  #2

1614639812
Report to moderator
1614639812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614639812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1614639812
Reply with quote  #2

1614639812
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1614639812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614639812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1614639812
Reply with quote  #2

1614639812
Report to moderator
1614639812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614639812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1614639812
Reply with quote  #2

1614639812
Report to moderator
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:31:27 PM
 #2

Why would Satoshi (group or indiv.) use 32 bit timestamps which would overflow before the last coin was designed to be minted?

The fix is simple, just up it to 64bit unsigned integers to represent the date.

This problem will rise in 2100+ A.D. only.
mustyoshi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 287
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:34:26 PM
 #3

Why would Satoshi (group or indiv.) use 32 bit timestamps which would overflow before the last coin was designed to be minted?

The fix is simple, just up it to 64bit unsigned integers to represent the date.

This problem will rise in 2100+ A.D. only.
Which is 34 years before the reward is due to be zero. This is going to be a problem eventually, so why not fix it now?
jackjack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1079


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:37:03 PM
 #4

Why would Satoshi (group or indiv.) use 32 bit timestamps which would overflow before the last coin was designed to be minted?

The fix is simple, just up it to 64bit unsigned integers to represent the date.

This problem will rise in 2100+ A.D. only.
Which is 34 years before the reward is due to be zero. This is going to be a problem eventually, so why not fix it now?
Because everybody now complains about the blockchain being too big
Not exactly the right time to increase the size of headers (I know it won't be noticeable but you know how that works...)

Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 09:38:15 PM
 #5

Which is 34 years before the reward is due to be zero. This is going to be a problem eventually, so why not fix it now?

It's a low priority problem. If Gavin doesn't fix problems related to ever-growing blockchain, we won't face "year 2100 problem" at all.
leijurv
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63
Merit: 10


Vires in Numeris


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 01:39:04 PM
 #6

Maybe I'm missing something, but won't 32-bit timestamps overflow in 2038?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

Firstbits 1Leijurv. Or, if you like cats, Firstbits 1Kittens and 1catcat as well. If you're a chemist, also 1Helium, 1Erbium, 1Copper, 1Cerium, and 1Nickel. If you like numbers, 123four, 12234,  12three.
Keybase and onename user: leijurv.
Caesium
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:40:16 PM
 #7

It's unsigned, so that buys a few extra years. See 'Solutions' in your wiki link, its mentioned there.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 01:40:20 PM
 #8

Maybe I'm missing something, but won't 32-bit timestamps overflow in 2038?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

In Bitcoin the timestamp is unsigned.
etotheipi
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1046


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 02:07:10 PM
 #9

This is basically a non-issue.  Just interpret the timestamp as the lower 32-bits of an infinite timestamp.  It "wraps around" every 138 years, and it's pretty easy to figure out how many times it's wrapped since Bitcoin was created, so it's easy to convert the stored 32-bit value, into your own 64-bit value.

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
leijurv
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63
Merit: 10


Vires in Numeris


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 02:29:31 PM
 #10

This is basically a non-issue.  Just interpret the timestamp as the lower 32-bits of an infinite timestamp.  It "wraps around" every 138 years, and it's pretty easy to figure out how many times it's wrapped since Bitcoin was created, so it's easy to convert the stored 32-bit value, into your own 64-bit value.
+1

Firstbits 1Leijurv. Or, if you like cats, Firstbits 1Kittens and 1catcat as well. If you're a chemist, also 1Helium, 1Erbium, 1Copper, 1Cerium, and 1Nickel. If you like numbers, 123four, 12234,  12three.
Keybase and onename user: leijurv.
TierNolan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1006


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
 #11

This is basically a non-issue.  Just interpret the timestamp as the lower 32-bits of an infinite timestamp.  It "wraps around" every 138 years, and it's pretty easy to figure out how many times it's wrapped since Bitcoin was created, so it's easy to convert the stored 32-bit value, into your own 64-bit value.

Right, in fact, they should define it exactly like that.  You work out the timestamp of a block so that it minimised the difference in time relative to the previous block.

This works unless blocks take decades to arrive.

1LxbG5cKXzTwZg9mjL3gaRE835uNQEteWF
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!