In addition to the hardfork necessary to resolve the date bug to allow for mining blocks well into the future...
A hardfork will eventually be required to address blockhash collisions, which become more likely as more blocks are generated and difficulty increases.
Not to mention the eventual hard fork where we have to upgrade to a more quantum resistant cyrpto system.
the still not actually proven acceleration possibility of schnorr's factorization attack that is used to sell a lot of shitcoins and a technology that takes half a city's worth of power to give you 3 qbits
also the clearly broken elliptic curve that the gubmint says is weak
Whats the "date bug"?
If I recall correctly, it's actually referring to the UNIX date problem, which is a well acknowledged problem in UNIX formatted time which most computers use it will occur in the year 2038. I don't know what the fix is for this, maybe there's a simple solution, but because the issue is still a handful of years away no one's bothered to fix the problem.
Or maybe it's already been fixed. Either way it will cause a problem with timekeeping for computers.
Here is a wiki about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
TLDR, it's not a Bitcoin-specific problem. It's a problem with computers in general and how we represent time on computers.
I thought the Unix time thing was 2106 in the case of bitcoin due to an extra bit being used?
Yes. The timestamp is unsigned 32 bit. So we get ~4.3 billion seconds since Jan 1970 unix time epoch. This lands us in 2106 (2106-02-07 06:28:15). At which time the value can overflow, which would cause mined blocks to be invalid as they'd be reporting a timestamp not allowed per median of recent blocks being well in the future.
Othet systems globally also need updates.
Presumably we'd fork to using a 64 bit time in the block.
most timestamps i know of use signed integers so they are half the distance between that date and midnight january 1 1970
sometime about 2038
yes i think that bitcoin uses unsigned unix timestamps, that is what is in my memory too, i recall reading code that has extra handling for it
