|
|
@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ into microblocks during the current epoch. Transactions included in microblocks |
|
|
|
been confirmed by an anchor block, but can be assumed to be highly likely to achieve finality in the order in which the leader |
|
|
|
packaged them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A primary feature of any blockchain is that it can be reordered by the miners in order to avoid malicious actors in the |
|
|
|
mining pool. Because of this reordering ability, any transaction (whether it is included in an anchor block or a |
|
|
|
microblock) is subject to potential reordering. As more blocks are added to the chain, the likelihood of a transaction |
|
|
|
being reordered decreases. For example, many exchanges wait until at least 3 Bitcoin blocks have been added to report |
|
|
|
a transaction as fully confirmed. This would be known as a 3 block confirmation. Microblocks provide between a 0-1 block |
|
|
|
confirmation. A transaction that has been included in a microblock is likely to remain in that order, and the order of |
|
|
|
the transaction is known (unlike a transaction in mempool). |
|
|
|
In most blockchains, transactions can be re-ordered and chain history can be re-written with support from enough miners. |
|
|
|
This allows a blockchain to recover from certain types of attacks, as miners can collectively agree to rewrite history |
|
|
|
and omit malicious blocks. As more blocks are added on top of a block that includes a transaction, the likelihood of a |
|
|
|
transaction being reordered decreases. For example, many exchanges wait until at least 3 Bitcoin blocks have been added |
|
|
|
to report a transaction as fully confirmed (3 block confirmation). Microblocks provide between 0 block and 1 block |
|
|
|
confirmation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-> If a transaction is dependent on a chain state that could by altered by previous transactions with serious |
|
|
|
implications, you should carefully consider whether it should be performed using microblocks. |
|
|
|