|
mustyoshi (OP)
|
 |
May 12, 2013, 09:11:21 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to achieve higher forum ranks, you need both activity points and merit points.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
May 12, 2013, 09:31:27 PM |
|
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 (OP)
|
|
May 12, 2013, 09:34:26 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
|
|
May 12, 2013, 09:37:03 PM |
|
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
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
May 12, 2013, 09:38:15 PM |
|
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
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
Vires in Numeris
|
|
May 13, 2013, 01:39:04 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 13, 2013, 01:40:16 PM |
|
It's unsigned, so that buys a few extra years. See 'Solutions' in your wiki link, its mentioned there.
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
May 13, 2013, 01:40:20 PM |
|
In Bitcoin the timestamp is unsigned. |
|
|
|
|
etotheipi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
May 13, 2013, 02:07:10 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
leijurv
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
Vires in Numeris
|
|
May 13, 2013, 02:29:31 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1083
|
|
May 13, 2013, 10:39:37 PM |
|
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
|
|
|
|
