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?

Helmar
  • 1,293
  • 1
  • 15
  • 28
philszalay
  • 141
  • 1
  • "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 08 '18 at 08:02

1 Answers1

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.

ben75
  • 5,344
  • 11
  • 32