nLocktime.. is hard fork inevitable? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

385 sats \ 13 comments \ @archival_node 4 Oct bitcoin_beginners

Reading this guide, from learnmeabitcoin.com about locktime, i just learned that there's last 4bytes data in transaction, LockTime, only treats values below 500,000,000 as block heights. Since we are at block 917584 now, so to reach 499,999,999 it’ll take… roughly 9,486 years..

After that, we won’t even be able to set block-based timelocks. is hardfork inevitable to re-enable to setup block based nLocktime?

I’m kinda scared we’ll need a hard fork in the future...

view all related items

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 4 Oct

I’m kinda scared we’ll need a hard fork in the future...

LOL yeah in 1000 years. Really do not understand why you, now, a meaningless user are scared for what will happen in 1000 years? Who the fuck cares? You will be cosmic dust anyways.

123 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 4 Oct

It's basically the problem people wanting to use Bitcoin as a store of value for generational, unconfiscatable wealth run into (though the 2106 date is sooner and more impactful.)

However, the reason why this use-case is premature is because you cannot extrapolate 16 years of data into centuries and assert stability, especially since the technical expiry date right now is 2106. I'm sure there will be a fix but if you look closely at what some people dare saying about confiscation in the whole quantum crap debate, I would say that the current trend is decline of long-term reliability.

It is better to use one's sats as MoE primarily.

200 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 4 Oct

This, to me, is why time locks much past a year or two are risky.

111 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 4 Oct

and I locked some BTC for 100 years just to fuck up with future devs 😂😂😂 I will just look from the sky and laugh.... me, the stardust.

Some people will ask "why did you locked BTC for 100 years?" I will answer with another simple question: "why dogs lick their balls?" The answer is : because they can...

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @dgdhr335 22h

Roman architecture, viaducts and the like are still in use today in some places because they built it to last. It's older than 1,000 years.

It's important the people today do the right thing if you think this is a system with potential to last as long.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 22h

Do you really think or have proof that the romans were thinking that their viaducts last 2000 years? I doubt it. They just want to have water... now. You do not build something today so you think som,ebody in 100 or 1000 years will still use it. You build it for YOURSELF to use it today, as a necessity. What comes next hundreds of years is their problem not yours.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @dgdhr335 22h

If the only concern was "water...now" you'd have thrown up any old ditch or piping and called it a day. Of course it would be long gone by now.

Numerous other examples exist. Bazalgette over-engineered his sewerage system in London such that large parts of it still function perfectly well today despite the growth of the city. Even having the foresight to include secondary tunnels for other infrastructure alongside the sewers. It's over 150 years old but was carefully thought out, properly built and designed to work beyond a tiny lifespan.

If people believe bitcoin is to be a system used well into the future, it makes sense to engineer it thoughtfully and robustly.

186 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 4 Oct

There's a problem in 2106 with the uint32 timestamp in the blockheader before that. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Block_Headers

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @archival_node OP 4 Oct

why satoshi did not leave enough space for this... like u128 and compact form..

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 4 Oct

To make y'all panic.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @archival_node OP 4 Oct

is the hard fork inevitable in 2016??? that's frustrating..

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4 Oct

The "hard fork" can be done slowly over the coming 70 years. I wouldn't be too scared; just needs to be properly tested but we have decades to pull that off.

Perhaps it's an idea to document all known "consensus debt" like this, the nLocktime, "BIP-42"... and so on. That would allow people to make better informed choices?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 4 Oct

I think we are still many centuries away from that point under current block intervals. If the need ever arises there are multiple ways the community could address it including introducing a new field or repurposing existing semantics which might be done through a soft fork rather than a hard fork depending on design..