3

Is it possible to stack transactions which depend from themselves?

Example:

State on start: Account A (2 ETH), Account B (0 ETH), Account C (0 ETH)

Transaction 1 - Account A sends 2 ETH to Account B.

Transaction 2 - After few seconds Account B sends 2 ETH to Account C, but the first transactions is not already in block, so Account B has 2 ETH pending and not confirmed.

Question: Will second transaction be rejected by nodes or realized?

  • The second transaction won't even reach nodes because trying to broadcast should get an insufficient funds error. To avoid an XY problem perhaps try to describe what you are trying to achieve. – eth Mar 29 '17 at 10:41
  • I want broadcast some transactions, which results from themselves and don't wait to confirmations. It looks like a stack. It's possible in BTC, when you put some transactions to mempool and they can be confirmed in one block. – MrSea Mar 29 '17 at 10:51
  • As eth says we could probably be more helpful if we knew what @MrSea is trying to achieve. However, the literal question asked is quite interesting. I guess the answer is that in practice the B->C tx will tend to get rejected from mempools, but it would be legal (and also profitable) for a miner to include them both in a block, in the event that they had software clever enough to work out that they should try it. – Edmund Edgar Mar 29 '17 at 12:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.