vv01f [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-02-02 š Original message:On 02.02.2015 15:17, ...
š
Original date posted:2015-02-02
š Original message:On 02.02.2015 15:17, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>> Uff, I would expect YYYYMMDD there so it's human readable as well.
>
> Those strings are not meant to be read by humans. YYYYMMDD is more
> complicated than necessary, given that Bitcoin deals with seconds since
> epoch everywhere.
First that is a pitty .. as its simply a waste of storage.
but back to Pavol's point: IMHO no harm to anything, as Bitcoin never
has any valid timestamp below ~1230768000 (jan2009) and thus will always
have 10 digits.. you can easily identify 8 char long timestamp as the
proposed format.
And there never is anything wrong with having a transparent, human
readable option - especially when it saves 2 bytes in e.g. qr-codes.
š Original message:On 02.02.2015 15:17, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>> Uff, I would expect YYYYMMDD there so it's human readable as well.
>
> Those strings are not meant to be read by humans. YYYYMMDD is more
> complicated than necessary, given that Bitcoin deals with seconds since
> epoch everywhere.
First that is a pitty .. as its simply a waste of storage.
but back to Pavol's point: IMHO no harm to anything, as Bitcoin never
has any valid timestamp below ~1230768000 (jan2009) and thus will always
have 10 digits.. you can easily identify 8 char long timestamp as the
proposed format.
And there never is anything wrong with having a transparent, human
readable option - especially when it saves 2 bytes in e.g. qr-codes.