One of many rule for the transaction substitute (RBF) is that the variety of unique transactions (immediately conflicting transactions + their descendants) cannot exceed 100. Nonetheless, in presence of overlapping transactions, “unsuitable counting” of transactions could happen.
For instance, contemplate state of affairs the place transactions A, B and C are ancestors of transaction D. If substitute transaction R replaces A, B and C, then, based on the rule/situation above, they depend as 6 and never as 4.
A B C
| /
| /
D
What pursuits me is how transactions are calculated within the following instance. Within the instance, A and B are ancestors of C, however A can be an ancestor of B. If R replaces A and B, how is the variety of transactions calculated on this case?
A
/ |
B |
|
C
I might say the variety of transactions is 6.
I got here to that conclusion (quantity) within the following approach:
1. begin from A; depend A (1)
1.1. from A go to B; depend B (2)
1.1.1 from B go to C; depend C (3)
1.2. from A go to C; depend C (4)
2. begin from B; depend B (5)
2.1. from B go to C; depend C (6)
Am I proper?
Thanks!