Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] deterministic transaction expiration

From: Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 08:55:51 -0400

...and existing users and uses of nLockTime suddenly become worthless,
breaking payment channel refunds and other active uses of nLockTime.

You cannot assume the user is around to rewrite their nLockTime, if it
fails to be confirmed before some arbitrary deadline being set.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Tom Harding <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 8/5/2014 12:10 PM, Kaz Wesley wrote:
> > Any approach based on beginning a transaction expiry countdown when a
> > transaction is received (as in mempool janitor) seems unviable to me:
> > once a node has forgotten a transaction, it must be susceptible to
> > reaccepting it;
>
> It's hard to argue with that logic.
>
> If nLockTime is used for expiration, transaction creator can't lie to
> help tx live longer without pushing initial confirmation eligibility
> into the future.  Very pretty.  It would also enable "fill or kill"
> transactions with a backdated nLockTime, which must be confirmed in a
> few blocks, or start vanishing from mempools.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Infragistics Professional
> Build stunning WinForms apps today!
> Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
> Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/