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

From: Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:36:17 -0400

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Kaz Wesley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Any approach based on beginning a transaction expiry countdown when a
> transaction is received (as in mempool janitor) seems unviable to me:
>
...

> That's why I think including information in the transaction itself, as
> with my nLockTime/IsStandard proposal, is necessary for transactions
> to reliably eventually die off from mempools.
>

"reliably die off from mempools" leads into the land of "tightly
synchronizing memory pools across the network" which is a problem of...
large scope and much debate.  :)

For the moment, simply capping the mempool's size at each local node is a
much more reachable goal.  Capping, then, implies some culling policy.  In
general, bitcoind Tx mempool size is rather open ended, and that needs
sorting out.

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