Warning - possible stupid/trivial question ahead.
I've read through the basics of the pitched Avalanche concept for double spend prevention and found it quite interesting. However I do not understand why double spends cannot be solved with a consensus rule. For example the transaction hash of the double spent transactions that is closest to the hash of the previous mined block is accepted and the rest regarded? Why the complex communication and consensus seeking between nodes?
I think for this to work the first seen rule must also be removed so that double spends are propagated.
Which brings me to another question. Why are double spend transactions not propagated so that clients/nodes can detect the double spend?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a7jadf/avalanche_why_the_complication_and_not_a_simple/
No comments:
Post a Comment