I can see that helping narrow the windows for problems, but it doesn't really answer what wins in disputes and how things resolve under network stress and malicious attacks.
Say the providers with transaction B are cut off for a few minutes around and after midnight, so they join the synchronization a little late. But they still have a 'valid' earlier timestamp. Did A get an advantage, becoming more likely to 'win', with its small head start?
With thousands nodes it doesn't matter if some of them have incorrect data. If u care about double-spending transactions, both transactions will be cancelled (
http://qubic.boards.net/thread/14/double-spending).
Interesting, thank you, but I don't see an explanation how these peer-to-peer challenges result in a consensus determination of how many new qubics each provider receives. Is that in another thread/page?
Each provider decides how much QBC the other providers should get (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112676.msg1219095#msg1219095).