How Do Zero-Confirmation Transactions Increase the Vulnerability to a Double-Spend?

Zero-confirmation transactions, which are accepted immediately upon broadcast without waiting for a block confirmation, are highly vulnerable to double-spend attacks. The attacker can quickly broadcast a transaction to a merchant or exchange and, almost simultaneously, broadcast a conflicting transaction with a higher fee to the miners.

The miner is incentivized to include the higher-fee transaction in the next block, effectively invalidating the zero-confirmation transaction. This "race attack" is a common form of double-spend against services that accept unconfirmed transactions.

How Do Replace-by-Fee (RBF) Mechanisms Help Users on a Congested Network?
How Does “Replace-by-Fee” (RBF) Impact a Miner’s Transaction Selection Process?
How Does Network Congestion Affect Confirmation Time and Double-Spend Risk?
How Do “Zero-Confirmation” Transactions Pose a Risk to Merchants?
How Does a Transaction’s “Replace-by-Fee” (RBF) Feature Attempt to Reduce Latency?
How Do Zero-Confirmation Transactions Increase the Risk of a Double-Spend?
What Is “Replace-by-Fee” (RBF) and How Does It Affect Miners?
How Can a User Replace a Zero-Fee Transaction with a Higher-Fee One?

Glossar