Search results

Thanks for the reply. If you can please reference the relevant files in the source code, this will help understanding for me and everyone else on the forum. I have a bunch of questions still about 2) "First off, the masternode network reduces the network propagation latency to about 4 seconds...

I understand that it is supposed to be the expected behaviour. Please explain to me how the attack I described is not theoretically possible.

No. Someone should though if my understanding of instantx is correct. If its not a dev, it'll be someone malicious.

But instantx is not proof of work. And since your block consensus now relies on something that is not proof of work, you have introduced new problems. Below is example: Bob votes for a transaction lock 1 where unspent A is sent to address B. Bob also votes for another transaction lock 2 where...

"the network must be capable of rejecting blocks that violate existing transaction locks." So is the network currently rejecting blocks that violate the transaction locks or not? I assume yes? If so, how do you prevent an ill connected node I described in (2) from forking?

Thanks, for answering. I am still not clear on all four questions, so let me rephrase the most important question (1) and take it from there: Are the transaction locks part of the block consensus rules? If there is a transaction lock on an unspent, and a block is mined that spends the unspent...

Hi, some questions about instantx. 1. My understanding is that all nodes will reject blocks that contains a double spend based on the transaction locks. Is this correct? 2. If so, can't masternodes vote on two different transaction locks, sending one out to one half of the network, and sending...