Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XEkXT-0003Hq-3D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:36:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XEkXL-0000L8-0c for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:36:51 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so7559383igc.6 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tgibydKW5BZQidZ61S256+tJ2wH0MHbcWzAO5xokkkQ=; b=dz4BEw3fVIa0SjlW4YE7EO1BinGsIq9VTjiL1XBgVW0wEsePPWcxbHDOOLV5Dyqyxk /d+ZI66XzM7DbeMFOCfiGLuk3RWyOvh5B8dzNX1tigveLbRPcsOYjqGqxmi+ooC2DRX9 QMi1I1B0V2c7yaFLwjTl/S7mnqC2dVxBO8aL/mQYjkgB+dX33GjrrbshJOMrcUOQN/tX ofEE+h/TTUXq+11Z0lfFvrG38KszZy+z2O6jQ1CbHJUP8guhanUrc9TnZdbESIrskoTv ErDSH2ioCTtXrTHuBbRNqaKdzcPcZeJbcowRp1Uciw8iFEyL4mXF0/r9p4Jt+9NsWBJt 2u3A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfUDM6jKZimuLszatAktfsaIaHjlDYtdioaJIaApKqJ3q7Llcik2g1zEu2IeJpRAGEdXOe X-Received: by 10.50.126.100 with SMTP id mx4mr10216201igb.1.1407267397525; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.10.78 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:36:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:36:17 -0400 Message-ID: To: Kaz Wesley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a9604558a8604ffe6f990 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1XEkXL-0000L8-0c 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: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:36:51 -0000 --047d7b3a9604558a8604ffe6f990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:10 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: > ... > That's why I think including information in the transaction itself, as > with my nLockTime/IsStandard proposal, is necessary for transactions > to reliably eventually die off from mempools. > "reliably die off from mempools" leads into the land of "tightly synchronizing memory pools across the network" which is a problem of... large scope and much debate. :) For the moment, simply capping the mempool's size at each local node is a much more reachable goal. Capping, then, implies some culling policy. In general, bitcoind Tx mempool size is rather open ended, and that needs sorting out. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --047d7b3a9604558a8604ffe6f990 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Kaz Wesley <keziahw@gmail.com> w= rote:
Any approach based on beg= inning a transaction expiry countdown when a
transaction is received (as in mempool janitor) seems unviable to me:
...
That's why I think including information in the transaction itse= lf, as
with my nLockTime/IsStandard proposal, is necessary for transactions
to reliably eventually die off from mempools.

"reliably die off from mempools" le= ads into the land of "tightly synchronizing memory pools across the ne= twork" which is a problem of... large scope and much debate.=C2=A0 :)<= br>
For the moment, simply capping the mem= pool's size at each local node is a much more reachable goal.=C2=A0 Cap= ping, then, implies some culling policy.=C2=A0 In general, bitcoind Tx memp= ool size is rather open ended, and that needs sorting out.=C2=A0

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core dev= eloper and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/
--047d7b3a9604558a8604ffe6f990--