[LEAPSECS] Focus in the debate, alternative proposal

Paul Sheer p at 2038bug.com
Sat Jan 8 11:05:00 EST 2011

Hmmm -

I am somewhat concerned about your objectivity when you insist
that it is a problem for my company.... I've been staring at
this GSM code for 2 years now and I have face-to-face access
to our support staff.


> Microsecond resolution of the timestamp, millisecondish fuzzing, yes.

> So there's no contradiction here. The accuracy of the timestamps is in

> the tens to hundreds of microsecond range, even if the resolution is

> supposed to be microsecond. There's nothing contradictory about this at

> all.

I wasn't implying it was contradictory. I was just asking to be
sure that indeed BOTH are the status quo.


> > Are the trades always automatically reconciled at the end of each day?


> There is a three day clearing period after the trade, yes.


This warrants further investigation.

Is there anyone that can give us more information?

Is there anyone that has worked directly with these logs?

> All trades have to be matched up for them to be processed. If they

> don't, they are kicked over to a human to match them up and to prevent

> fraud. They very much matter and trying to sort out a large skew after

> the fact is difficult. These procedures exist to prevent fraud.


> So even in your case, it matters, and people have to get into the loop

> sometimes.

No, this is my point about our system:

The chances of having to do a manual investigation of a transaction
AND that it happen near a leap second are extremely small and well
worth ignoring.

Like any company, we have a long list of minor bugs in our backlog.

This issue does not ever appear in the list.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list