1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
|
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"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target="_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></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"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tomh@thinlink.com" target="_blank">tomh@thinlink.com</a>></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--
|
