From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XFp7i-0003qk-6x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:42:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.45; envelope-from=keziahw@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFp7h-0001U8-42 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:42:42 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id e131so3928140oig.4 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.191.7 with SMTP id gu7mr31901445obc.14.1407523355613; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: keziahw@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.61.195 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.61.195 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53E1A8AF.4030206@thinlink.com> <53E23F49.3020605@thinlink.com> <53E50B00.8030505@thinlink.com> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:42:35 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UCFS47baptsjjUqOdpEJa7qOwJM Message-ID: From: Kaz Wesley To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b6429fdf6905002291ab X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (keziahw[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XFp7h-0001U8-42 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:42:42 -0000 --089e0158b6429fdf6905002291ab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 A new network tx field would have the same problem, right? With a child-refreshes-parent policy, someone wishing to redeem a transaction that has passed its relay window without being confirmed could still do so. On Aug 8, 2014 11:16 AM, "Jeff Garzik" wrote: > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Harding wrote: > >> 4. add a new IsStandard rule rejecting transactions with an nLockTime > >> more than N blocks behind the current tip (for some fixed value N, to > >> be determined) > > It cannot be assumed that transaction creation time and transaction > publish-to-outside-world time are the same, even though they often > are. > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --089e0158b6429fdf6905002291ab Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A new network tx field would have the same problem, right?

With a child-refreshes-parent policy, someone wishing to red= eem a transaction that has passed its relay window without being confirmed = could still do so.

On Aug 8, 2014 11:16 AM, "Jeff Garzik"= <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote= :
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
>> 4. add a new IsStandard rule rejecting transactions with an nLockT= ime
>> more than N blocks behind the current tip (for some fixed value N,= to
>> be determined)

It cannot be assumed that transaction creation time and transaction
publish-to-outside-world time are the same, even though they often
are.

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/b= ds
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment
--089e0158b6429fdf6905002291ab--