From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XEsQF-000342-Fi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 04:01:55 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XEsQE-0005pi-D9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 04:01:55 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id et14so2642033pad.35 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 21:01:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=G1EWHFavRCIfnLTmNL0QfS00MflqnCi/d44F3DzcVEc=; b=GZubvNxXQpmUWgKMtZddDDba1HxlKA9AdjoNtiUZPR1YDZn3T36CN1AsyxH908x1L0 5jXCAuW2X5Ei0gJ+1Oe3Bv1KpZDYxqdcyuv9suX0sxouWaEYLBQviT+tkjgnhD2lNHeu 475TCSITyllVbr5HBy/cFGRHipo7qCzAwliG4Wz1tHf5k9UmSBSPLOHmoUyc9TQ8bjax 9cgQHhtgGzW49LNTRaWtny0R+EDUCYwzWed53aFE1udS1UXXmR1KR2N3O9L/ZiHrvGZC scjD/xerVfZLksGR3s48vaQk7IzlDLlRW4HKMX8+V34RKcjQdxfysYNlCK/RJ+LieXcY 7fQA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlFfprGQbjwz9yqWy7ZjCG9jLYpdAXhaxJKDQcwViMsooo+Gye64HJt958SB0spQ3bIZPF1 X-Received: by 10.70.140.13 with SMTP id rc13mr8720053pdb.127.1407297708570; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 21:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-6-44-248.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [99.6.44.248]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vu7sm12687334pab.34.2014.08.05.21.01.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Aug 2014 21:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53E1A8AF.4030206@thinlink.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 21:01:51 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1XEsQE-0005pi-D9 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] deterministic transaction expiration X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 04:01:55 -0000 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.