Regarding the statement about two confirmation times: From a technical standpoint, it is wrong.
Propagation of votes in this specific block-lattice-based coin does happen within a few seconds. So there can't be a conflict happening within the next minute.
Yes, you're right - I never meant it that way.
The point is that if a conflict appears in the first seconds - e.g. an attacker sends one transaction to one half of his connected nodes, and a conflicting transaction just 2-3 seconds after to the rest of the network - then the voting process can be longer - at least it's no longer "instant".
It may be confirmed "enough" for a merchant to accept it in significantly less than a minute (as it seems to be the case, according to the Reddit discussion), but this is mainly an "achievement" of the semi-centralized DPoS system, and not of the block lattice/DAG.
So.. in the first few seconds there is a decision whether it is confirmed (almost 'instantly'; up to 3 seconds) or will take up to 1 minute until there might be a confirmation.
But a scenario where a transaction is confirmed after 5 seconds, with opposing votes 20 seconds later can not work.
Yep, I also understood it that way. The "two confirmation times" part of my post was simply trying to describe what you say in your first sentence.
I want to clarify that I'm not a Bitcoin maximalist (although I do support mainly coins which follow the Bitcoin model - i.e. decentralized coins
not distributed via ICOs) nor do I have something against Nano. It only annoys me that some Nano users try to market the coin as an alternative to Bitcoin with LN, which it is not, because confirmations are not always instant and the security model is drastically different and
much more centralized. Also, the myth of "infinite capacity" is basically the old big blocker argument. In a scenario when Nano gets used more, then conflicts will be also more likely, so the instant confirmation time will be matter of luck.