4

I was looking at the best answer of the following thread (Without the Coordinator, how will the network decide which double-spend succeeds?) and asking myself what will happen to the transactions e, f and all previous ones in the red zone?

Will they never be confirmed again because j is an "old tip" now?

Wouldn't be that bad for this transactions?

  • "Will they never be confirmed again because j is an "old tip" now?" You should use the term "approved" instead of "confirmed". There is an important difference. "approved" means that the transaction was checked by another transaction and seen as a valid. "confirmed" means that the probability for this transaction to be valid is so huge (i.e. approved by so many tips) that we can say it is confirmed – ben75 Jan 8 '18 at 8:02
2

In this example, transactions X, K, L, Q, R, a, b, e, f, j must be re-attached to other transactions to get a new opportunity to be confirmed (promoting will not help because promotion don't change trunk and branch transaction).

Note that X is now conflicting with all tips: so re-attachment will also fail forever for X.

So, yes regarding confirmation speed: being attached-to or validating (directly or indirectly) a transaction that will later be revealed as a "double-spend" is not a good thing: it reduces confirmation speed and force a re-attachment.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.