Figure 1 on the paper cited by the Iota white paper seems to be incorrect in that it shows transactions 2 and 3 having that relative ordering in time. But that can't be known! There is no clock! The only ordering is the DAG itself, thus 2 and 3 should both be labeled 2! That is fundamental. That breaks all the assumptions about which is a double-spend.




Same way they do in Bitcoin. Spending a double-spend before it is recognized as a double-spend. Two partitions may not be known to each other and then later they are, because there is no global LCR forcing us to know which chain is known. And we know due to asynchrony that transaction signers can't see all activity of all other signers simultaneously. The only way I see to resolve this is with centralized servers emulating a block chain.

Double-spends in DAGs are probabilistic which I don't think was reflected in your diagrams. The decisions about double-spends are not binary (yes/no). I am guessing that maybe you have not yet conceptualized the implications of asynchrony.