Sorry but he was stronger than me, I like these games to death, because in this way I understand if people read, understand and then get informed; or else they take what one writes literally without setting even the slightest line of criticism.
It is usually said that the most reliable value is the average of a series of values, so it is not certain that the first value taken is the one closest to reality: the information must be screened, verified and compared!
The Bitcoin Blockchain is also based on the same principle and what I published in the previous article is confirmation.
But let's go into the technical details that no one has faced, but has only made controversy without asking questions aimed at having clarifications.
As expressly written in the screenshot I published, we are talking about a particular block, a Stale-Block.
But what is it?
Simply a block that has two validations and both have been considered TRUE by the other nodes. So one might say that the Nakamoto team designed bullshit then, but that's not the case. This possibility was already known and, in this regard, the blockchain considers the chain with more blocks valid.
How can such a thing happen?
Very simple: the physical latencies due to the network, or, if it is more understandable, to the communication times between the nodes.
Let me explain with an example.
Suppose that a block is validated in Russia, and the same block is also validated in Mexico, the block thus validated will be delivered to the miners that are geographically closest; and on that block they will start undermining the next one.
Regardless of whether the solution to the problem is different, these blocks create a conflict because they are both valid but only one can be added.
Then?
At this point a rule is inserted: the longest blockchain becomes reliable (therefore true).
In practice, when the next block is confirmed, the previous block is confirmed valid, which can be “Russian” or “Mexican”.
Since, however, the Stale-Block contains transactions that must be recorded (otherwise you could, in fact, incur the double expense), the data are delivered to the MemPool which will insert them in a future block.
The factors that contribute to the creation of the Stale-Blocks are mainly the distances between the computers that make up the nodes and the communication delays.
Someone careful enough could assert that, in this way, an attack on the Bitcoin network can be launched.
Yes, it is possible as long as you are able to perform these maneuvers (he must be really good!)
I constantly check my transaction until I see it validated on a block that will become Stale-Block. Once I am sure that the block is defined as Stale-Block, I immediately execute another transaction of the same amount, increasing the validation reward so that the miners validate the second transaction before the original retrieved from the Stale-Block.
Here is explained in a technical way, albeit very simple as it was possible to have a double expense: it did not happen, in fact!
The possibilities of bypassing the Bitcoin network are there, yes, but only on paper: a procedure as I described is so difficult to apply that it is even impossible: in the time that we become aware that our transaction is part of a Stale-Block, the information has already been delivered to the Mempools and in the process of being validated.