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 <jgar...@bitpay.com
<mailto:jgar...@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 <t...@thinlink.com
<mailto:t...@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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
