> >> 2. (from Suhas) "once a valid transaction is created, it should not > become invalid later on unless the inputs are double-spent." > > This doesn't seem like a huge concern to me > > I agree that this shouldn't be a concern. In fact, I've asked numerous > people in numerous places what practical downside there is to transactions > that become invalid, and I've heard basically radio silence other than one > off hand remark by satoshi at the dawn of time which didn't seem to me to > have good reasoning. I haven't seen any downside whatsoever of transactions > that can become invalid for anyone waiting the standard 6 confirmations - > the reorg risks only exists for people not waiting for standard > finalization. So I don't think we should consider that aspect of a > sponsorship transaction that can only be mined with the transaction it > sponsors to be a problem unless a specific practical problem case can be > identified. Even if a significant such case was identified, an easy > solution would be to simply allow sponsorship transactions to be mined on > or after the sponsored transaction is mined. >
The downside is that in a 6 block reorg any transaction that is moved past its expiration date becomes invalid and all its descendants become invalid too. The current consensus threshold for transactions to become invalid is a 100 block reorg, and I see no reason to change this threshold. I promise to personally build a wallet that always creates transactions on the verge of becoming invalid should anyone ever implement a feature that violates this tx validity principle.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
