On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:33:11AM +0000, John Dillon wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > > Remember that interpreting the timestamp on a block for the purposes of > > timestamping is a lot more subtle than it appears at first. > > I actually just meant how Pieter Wuille was talking about a blocktime accurate > to only within 18 hours. :) But it is a nice writeup! > > In any case, for many things simple relative ordering is enough rather than > absolute time. Ah, shoot, I just realized we both got missed Pieter's point entirely: he means to change the meaning of the header timestamp to be relative time passed since the last block... Well, it was a nice writeup! Thanks for the correction re: probabalistic; you are absolutely correct. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000fb6d0ed7479069edef10b8bc598783e9d94bdb5cf9ae6a5f1c