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

pull down to refresh

186 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 4 Oct \ on: nLocktime.. is hard fork inevitable? bitcoin_beginners

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?