In the current version, the transaction that does not get finished, are just cancelled. This will change in the final verison.
My questions about transactions still have not been answered. Nitesend in its current form is NOT anonymous. Its more of a muddling service than an anon service. It just groups transactions together but the inputs and outputs remain the same. Smaller transaction groups (2,3,etc) could easily be traced with reasonable certainty. How does Nitesend address this?
I'm still wondering these problems that are related to coinjoin in general. There are 2 main problems: If there is not any other transaction to join, there won't be any nitesend/coinjoin transaction. The other problem is that when generating the joined transaction, someone who peeks and logs *all* transaction offers 24/8 would find out some information about coin owners.
But there are solutions to fix these. One idea to fix the first would be 'spontaneous nitesend mixer'. The basic idea is to allow wallets to collectively mix their coins to a brand new, first time used coins. This mixing transaction could happen either on predefined time or after wallets collectively find enought participants. In practise that would mean: you check the 'mix my wallet' checkbox. Wallet broadcasts a mixing request and counts all received requests. When a treshold has been reached, all wallets send one transaction with random sized newly generated output coins. This could be repeated just as often as wanted.
Another idea to prevent peeking the nitesend transactions would be using crypted communication. In this case, we could use for example hyperboria (cjdns) technology; combined with sync, that would mean all sync coins would have an own ipv6 address and an encrypted communication link! Nitesend transaction could be collected by sending the offers throught these kind of links, securing them from all peekers. Actually, the whole comunication between peers could be done throught private hyperboria network. I guess it would be better than TOR and vpn together.
What do you think? The problem is that these (specially nr 2) need some work to do and I really am not sure if they are worth implementing. Would they add enought anonymity to be worth implementing?