It took me a bit, but I think I now understand what you are saying. I'm a novice, so please correct me if I'm wrong. The "greedy" behavior would be when minors

It took me a bit, but I think I now understand what you are saying. I'm a novice, so please correct me if I'm wrong. The "greedy" behavior would be when minors explicitly prefer a sequence of transactions such as: Customer => Merchant: X+ε (1) Merchant => fees: X+ε (1) over Customer => Customer: X+ε (2) Going so far as to swap out (2) with (1), even if they already have (2). If there is no double spend, presumably the trustworthy merchant would send back ε after sufficient confirmation []. Or, in a world with fees, the ε would be fees in the original transaction (still serving the purpose of costing the malicious customer Bitcoin, even with successful double spend). That seems like a decent solution. [*] Or I suppose it could be in the same block. No difference. Edit: formatting made it unclear.