0

Following along the 2106 problem solution proposed in Will a hard fork be required to change timestamp fields? …

Is it possible to start including this logic into newer versions of core (is it already there?), or will this need to be a simultaneous upgrade by everyone?

Jeffrawesome
  • 1
  • Duplicate of https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106783/will-a-hard-fork-be-required-to-change-timestamp-fields – Luke Mlsna Apr 20 '22 at 02:09

1 Answers1

0

That proposed solution is only one possible solution. There might be better ways to solve this problem, and Nate Eldredge comments below this answer that a solution might not be needed at all.

Realistically, it's completely fine to ignore this problem until say the year 2096. 10 years is more than enough for the community to agree on a solution and schedule a fork. There are more immediate issues requiring community attention for now.

Vojtěch Strnad
  • 8,292
  • 2
  • 12
  • 40
  • Nate's comment ignores the need for timestamps in OP_CTLV. And 10 years sounds like plenty of time, but we should learn from rolling out IPv6 that you are probably drastically underestimating the time needed to upgrade a global network. – Mark H Apr 23 '22 at 11:41
  • That's what they said about Y2K, Y2.38K, IPv4, climate change, ... – user253751 May 19 '22 at 15:06