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.dillon...@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed leaders in the field. The early access version is available now. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
