It's well-known. Nobody really cares, because it's so far off. Not possible to do by softfork, no. It is possible to do by something that becomes a hardfork in 80 years, though, which is probably good enough.

I proposed a solution, but nobody was really interested. Let's see if anyone bites now.

---

Subject: Suggestion: Solve year 2106 problem by taking timestamps mod 2^32
To      Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Date    2020-09-19 12:36
Message Body
Currently, Bitcoin's timestamp rules are as follows:

1. The block timestamp may not be lower than the median of the last 11 blocks' 2. The block timestamp may not be greater than the current time plus two hours 3. The block timestamp may not be greater than 2^32 (Sun, 07 Feb 2106 06:28:16 +0000)

Thus, Bitcoin will "die" on or about 2106-02-07, when there is no timestamp below 2^32 that exceeds the median of the last 11 blocks.

If the rules were changed to the following, this problem would be solved:

1. The block timestamp plus k*2^32 may not be lower than the median of the last 11 blocks' 2. The block timestamp plus k*2^32 may not be greater than the current time plus two hours 3. k is an integer, whose value must be the same for the calculations of Rule 1 and Rule 2

This would cause a hardfork in the year 2106, which is approximately 85.5 years from now, by which time 95% of nodes would hopefully have updated.

Another proposed solution is 64-bit timestamps. They would break compatibility with other software that has specific expectations of header fields, like ASICs' firmware. They would also cause a hardfork before the date of timestamp overflow. I thus believe them to be a less appropriate solution.

What do you think of this idea? Is it worth a BIP?

On 2021-10-13 19:16, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
It seems that Bitcoin Core will stop working in 2038 because of
assertion checking if the current time is non-negative. Also, the
whole chain will halt after reaching median time 0xffffffff in 2106.
More information: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5365359.0

I wonder if that kind of issues are possible to fix in a soft-fork
way.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to