From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1XF2SB-0006ZC-2a
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:44:35 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XF2S9-0001RN-96
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:44:35 +0000
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rd3so3580888pab.0
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:44:27 -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
	:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type;
	bh=A4lYVC1tQJO5riZHRGtCavWuZGAL5GXbzl6pQ2IrKOk=;
	b=lVmeUzpKhJtuMPtnQJjrDtGfwUjdMvPMIEgZR5FTuEURWPBjfu4Tuichm3vdYaw/os
	/L2ZmPoIdHpbjoVxFj8L2sYGYVwaCYU2tH7VtHVU9pOpTXFi7mh/Yqc4pnyINmPvL8EL
	mlz7KaJIDpY4QB8Vs/RIvCiS62ngzGMLNcyO8b3Jt5Ge0RNMp1Myuc/NpE4kmG2ZCicZ
	yi2H1Z/Ps4JCMdt3NSe55NgUcRO8jkP0UAB36SNh1VLe6GklN8pjzbWx+f3hDf80dN7A
	UqROpOhMN9htdQ7jWq2IU1bwwV/BsdPRW1K98WBHU2qIFSydSDrejrDvF7V25QrSDTdK
	3/oA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmt7/YXcvWhx3IwLnBItflIqX/1lxeAWt0403tdlTXCrBEVJTx1xIDy+YUf2x4LR+Y4mKQm
X-Received: by 10.66.142.42 with SMTP id rt10mr11836561pab.1.1407336267077;
	Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:44:27 -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 xq3sm4359031pab.0.2014.08.06.07.44.26
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53E23F49.3020605@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:44:25 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <CA+iPb=HkxeVPF0SynxCPgUkq4msrdfayFrVNFjzg29rFwqXv1w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJHLa0O2wFq2Vs5Bes_8x1q_j0VC+U4DQkx=6GqT8w5e8Lh5Qg@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+iPb=ET+A-qB8TgPX8D-ut1DWnq9tZJ=14igfRVWO6eog6Xgw@mail.gmail.com>	<53E1A8AF.4030206@thinlink.com>	<CAJHLa0MfRhCPX8H92qc1kSebc=WrUzmSgbG331t4-zDHhTNu4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3eEiLxYfsAURRm4ysfS4TRgXxa_THxJ43cVH1OyR95JQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3eEiLxYfsAURRm4ysfS4TRgXxa_THxJ43cVH1OyR95JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------030804050901060002040904"
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1XF2S9-0001RN-96
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] deterministic transaction expiration
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:44:35 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030804050901060002040904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


How is eventual expiration of a tx that started life with an nLockTime 
in the future "breaking", any more than any other tx expiring?


On 8/6/2014 6:54 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> We could however introduce a new field in a new tx version. We know we 
> need to rev the format at some point anyway.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com 
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com>> wrote:
>
>      ...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 <tomh@thinlink.com
>     <mailto:tomh@thinlink.com>> wrote:
>
>         ...
>

>         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.
>


--------------030804050901060002040904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <br>
    How is eventual expiration of a tx that started life with an
    nLockTime in the future "breaking", any more than any other tx
    expiring?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/6/2014 6:54 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CANEZrP3eEiLxYfsAURRm4ysfS4TRgXxa_THxJ43cVH1OyR95JQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">We could however introduce a new field in a new tx
        version. We know we need to rev the format at some point anyway.</div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Jeff
          Garzik <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target="_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>&gt;</span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="ltr"> ...and existing users and uses of nLockTime
              suddenly become worthless, breaking payment channel
              refunds and other active uses of nLockTime.<br>
              <br>
              You cannot assume the user is around to rewrite their
              nLockTime, if it fails to be confirmed before some
              arbitrary deadline being set.<br>
              <br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_extra">
              <div>
                <div class="h5"><br>
                  <br>
                  <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:01
                    AM, Tom Harding <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:tomh@thinlink.com" target="_blank">tomh@thinlink.com</a>&gt;</span>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">...<br>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CANEZrP3eEiLxYfsAURRm4ysfS4TRgXxa_THxJ43cVH1OyR95JQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div class="gmail_extra">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div class="gmail_extra">
              <div>
                <div class="h5">
                  <div class="gmail_quote">
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                      If nLockTime is used for expiration, transaction
                      creator can't lie to<br>
                      help tx live longer without pushing initial
                      confirmation eligibility<br>
                      into the future.  Very pretty.  It would also
                      enable "fill or kill"<br>
                      transactions with a backdated nLockTime, which
                      must be confirmed in a<br>
                      few blocks, or start vanishing from mempools.<br>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------030804050901060002040904--