📅 Original date posted:2014-07-31
📝 Original message:There is currently little in place for managing transaction lifetime
in the network's mempools (see discussion in github in #3722 "mempool
transaction expiration", and it seems to be a major factor blocking
some mempool exchange, see #1833/1918, #3721). Expiry per-node a
certain amount of wall time after receipt has been proposed, but
that's a fragile mechanism -- a single node could keep all relayable
transactions alive forever by remembering transactions until most
nodes have dropped them and then releasing them back into the wild.
I have a proposal for a way to add finite and predictable lifespans to
transactions in mempools: we d̶e̶s̶t̶r̶o̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶
̶r̶e̶s̶u̶r̶r̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶u̶b̶ use nLockTime and a new standardness
rule. It could be done in stages, would not necessarily require even a
soft fork, and does not cause problems with reorgs like the proposal
in #3509:
1. start setting nLockTime to the current height by default in newly
created transactions (or slightly below the current height, for
reorg-friendliness)
2. once users have had some time to upgrade to clients that set
nLockTime, start discouraging transactions without nLockTime --
possibly with a slightly higher fee required for relay
3. start rate-limiting relay of transactions without an nLockTime
(maybe this alone could be used to achieve [2])
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)
Transactions would stop being relayed and drop out of mempools a fixed
number of blocks from their creation; once that window had passed, the
sender's wallet could begin to expect the transaction would not be
confirmed. In case a reorg displaces a transaction until after its
expiry height, a miner can still put it back in the blockchain; the
expiry height is just a relay rule. Also, a user who needed to get
their original "expired" transaction confirmed could still do so by
submitting it directly to a miner with suitable policies.
Kaz Wesley [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lw…z8zjm
2023-06-07 15:24:38
in reply to nevent1q…hp38
Author Public Key
npub1lwrwp8dzn9x5nqc7d735e0nuwxh0nyz5ezkfpjzr332efdxw9asq4z8zjmPublished at
2023-06-07 15:24:38Event JSON
{
"id": "4969593931026fe3bbc44d1f93bd8649a19542e474875ee788338d7883627790",
"pubkey": "fb86e09da2994d49831e6fa34cbe7c71aef99054c8ac90c8438c5594b4ce2f60",
"created_at": 1686151478,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"862ea3dc96b72bff70fc377e79d0d6efd56d14bf0babb9aa995ab55fc1b92d18",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-07-31\n📝 Original message:There is currently little in place for managing transaction lifetime\nin the network's mempools (see discussion in github in #3722 \"mempool\ntransaction expiration\", and it seems to be a major factor blocking\nsome mempool exchange, see #1833/1918, #3721). Expiry per-node a\ncertain amount of wall time after receipt has been proposed, but\nthat's a fragile mechanism -- a single node could keep all relayable\ntransactions alive forever by remembering transactions until most\nnodes have dropped them and then releasing them back into the wild.\n\nI have a proposal for a way to add finite and predictable lifespans to\ntransactions in mempools: we d̶e̶s̶t̶r̶o̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶\n̶r̶e̶s̶u̶r̶r̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶u̶b̶ use nLockTime and a new standardness\nrule. It could be done in stages, would not necessarily require even a\nsoft fork, and does not cause problems with reorgs like the proposal\nin #3509:\n1. start setting nLockTime to the current height by default in newly\ncreated transactions (or slightly below the current height, for\nreorg-friendliness)\n2. once users have had some time to upgrade to clients that set\nnLockTime, start discouraging transactions without nLockTime --\npossibly with a slightly higher fee required for relay\n3. start rate-limiting relay of transactions without an nLockTime\n(maybe this alone could be used to achieve [2])\n4. add a new IsStandard rule rejecting transactions with an nLockTime\nmore than N blocks behind the current tip (for some fixed value N, to\nbe determined)\n\nTransactions would stop being relayed and drop out of mempools a fixed\nnumber of blocks from their creation; once that window had passed, the\nsender's wallet could begin to expect the transaction would not be\nconfirmed. In case a reorg displaces a transaction until after its\nexpiry height, a miner can still put it back in the blockchain; the\nexpiry height is just a relay rule. Also, a user who needed to get\ntheir original \"expired\" transaction confirmed could still do so by\nsubmitting it directly to a miner with suitable policies.",
"sig": "1cedca9227ea66d0e3abc870839a41bab9d3fba9e51af3176755cfad53c4fad74d04fe7f7f54c249c55384861fac57c43d2d0acdeef47e9efc17e63fef87f97a"
}