How do you know they won't be double-spent later. Duh. That is the entire point of building a long chain of cumulative PoW so the confirmation is probabilistically more assured. I already wrote this in the prior post.
So you didn't like Markov Chain Monte Carlo described in Iota paper or saw a flaw in it?
I skipped deep understanding of it and just noted it was for defeating lie-in-wait attack chains. I understand what you are getting at now (as it promotes referencing in real-time not historically), but then we will go off whether the game theory is going to hold that all payers and payees will adhere to that forced selection rule and I am confident I can find a game theory that says they won't be able to (because it attempts to violate the CAP theorem).
The game theory analysis of a DAG is very, very intense. I am not going to be able to do it all today.
Yet I am very confident the design will fail due to CAP. It is just a matter of searching for the flaw.
I will reply to your other post next.
You know that once it is popular, the research scientists are going to dig much deeper than I am. The odds of this surviving all peer review are slim at best. Very, very risky design. But then again I think you can cash out well before then.
I want to produce a design that can be easily shown to be sound. Because I want to build trust quickly. For me this DAG is a gimick (and extremely complex). It has no advantages over my design afaics and a DAG won't afaik do instant transactions (as in < 1 second) unless there are a few trusted servers coordinating all propagation and can't prevent the money from shrinking to 0 asymptotically.