Probably you are right. I vaguely remembered the "Why Transactional Memory Should Not Be Obstruction-Free" paper, but I might have misunderstood or forgotten what it meant (the implementation can be non obstruction-free, but it doesn't mean it can live-lock).

You avoid livelock, as I understand the term in an STM, if the only thing that can prevent a transaction from committing when it tries to commit is some other transaction having committed. That way, forward progress is guaranteed; as long as some transaction commits, you're not livelocked, are you?

I'm not familiar with "obstruction-free"ness; should I be?