Topic: Bitcoin Block time (Read 549 times)
Complexity of network bitcoin is built so that the average block is generated every 10 minutes. The reward for the block is reduced by 2 times every 210000 blocks
The reason I do this discussion is that people dont want to hear about other crypto for payment. I dont understand
Then you, merchant, payment processor or payment gateway should consider use/accept zero-confirmation, it's not too risky if it's for small payment and any explorer/nodes don't detect double-spend attempt (with sufficient fee obviously).
CPFP also help if you want to use your bitcoin immediately.
Someone with good statics knowlege could calculate how average the block time is really. So normally it should be a Gauss normal distribution with the maximum at 10 mins. But it is not, cause e.g. miners are activated or deactivated and difficulty can not react. Look how many blocks are found exactly 10 mins after the last one or even 11 or 9 min.
There is no maximum on the time between blocks, so there is no maximum at 10 minutes. The distribution time between blocks is not a normal distribution. Rather it is poisson with the true mean at ~9.7 minutes. The difficulty adjusts to make it 10 minutes, but new hardware coming online pulls the time down. Since it is poisson, the time can vary a lot, from 0 minutes to several hours, there is no maximum at 10 minutes.AFAIK that was mean in few years ago. My rough calculation also show 9.4 minutes mean time.
Someone with good statics knowlege could calculate how average the block time is really. So normally it should be a Gauss normal distribution with the maximum at 10 mins. But it is not, cause e.g. miners are activated or deactivated and difficulty can not react. Look how many blocks are found exactly 10 mins after the last one or even 11 or 9 min.
There is no maximum on the time between blocks, so there is no maximum at 10 minutes. The distribution time between blocks is not a normal distribution. Rather it is poisson with the true mean at ~9.7 minutes. The difficulty adjusts to make it 10 minutes, but new hardware coming online pulls the time down. Since it is poisson, the time can vary a lot, from 0 minutes to several hours, there is no maximum at 10 minutes.
Someone with good statics knowlege could calculate how average the block time is really. So normally it should be a Gauss normal distribution with the maximum at 10 mins. But it is not, cause e.g. miners are activated or deactivated and difficulty can not react. Look how many blocks are found exactly 10 mins after the last one or even 11 or 9 min.
There is no maximum on the time between blocks, so there is no maximum at 10 minutes. The distribution time between blocks is not a normal distribution. Rather it is poisson with the true mean at ~9.7 minutes. The difficulty adjusts to make it 10 minutes, but new hardware coming online pulls the time down. Since it is poisson, the time can vary a lot, from 0 minutes to several hours, there is no maximum at 10 minutes.
As I mentioned before it is never a 10 min average. It is NOT a Gauss normal function.
The reason I do this discussion is that people dont want to hear about other crypto for payment. I dont understand
The reason I do this discussion is that people dont want to hear about other crypto for payment. I dont understand
As you say, bitcoin haven't fix this issue yet,
Who said it is an issue ?
This isn't an issue at all. It is necessary.
The adjustment each 2016 blocks is to keep a 10 minute average.
and this was one of the fork reasons, bitcoin cash brings a solution where the difficulty changes each block.
Changing difficulty each block is a horrible approach.
Mining a block is based on luck. And in a period with 2 or 3 blocks being mined successively the algorithm would adjust the difficulty to a level which practically wouldn't be mineable anymore.
Not to mention what kind of potential for abuse this offers.
That is the reason the interval of 2 weeks (2016 blocks with a 10-minute block time) has been chosen.
To adjust fast enough to not create a death spiral and to adjust slow enough to not get affected too much from short streaks with multiple blocks caused by 'luck' or an heavily increasing hashrate.
So if you don't like bitcoin for this reason i recommend you to give a try to bch.
And lets wait to see if bitcoin take the solutions that bch brings for this issue.
An algorithm for difficulty adjustment should be a working feature (e.g. BTC). Not an issue or something 'necessary' which needs adjustments and optimization to somehow work stable (e.g. BCH).
I am really wondering about BTC Block Time.
This morning only 6 Block found in 2 hours. Of course it depends on luck. But it depends also an HASH Rate. This is so enormous high and only adaped every 2 weeks.
Why does the biggest coin does not solve this difficulty problem? And why still more and more miners start so that the difficulty rises without watching the price.
This morning only 6 Block found in 2 hours. Of course it depends on luck. But it depends also an HASH Rate. This is so enormous high and only adaped every 2 weeks.
Why does the biggest coin does not solve this difficulty problem? And why still more and more miners start so that the difficulty rises without watching the price.
In theory bitcoin have blocks each 10 minutes, that mean 6 blocks each hour, and i say in theory because as you say before, some time we see a low number of blocks in lot of time. but at the same time i have seen before 3 blocks back to back.
As you say, bitcoin haven't fix this issue yet, and this was one of the fork reasons, bitcoin cash brings a solution where the difficulty changes each block. So if you don't like bitcoin for this reason i recommend you to give a try to bch. And lets wait to see if bitcoin take the solutions that bch brings for this issue.
n a more simple words, Block time is the time which the networks takes to generate one extra block or the time taken from one Block to another.No one can say exactly how much Block Time will it take to mine another. The 10 minute window is just an average. There is a generation calculator that will tell you how long it might take to mine a block.
Someone with good statics knowlege could calculate how average the block time is really. So normally it should be a Gauss normal distribution with the maximum at 10 mins. But it is not, cause e.g. miners are activated or deactivated and difficulty can not react. Look how many blocks are found exactly 10 mins after the last one or even 11 or 9 min.
n a more simple words, Block time is the time which the networks takes to generate one extra block or the time taken from one Block to another.No one can say exactly how much Block Time will it take to mine another. The 10 minute window is just an average. There is a generation calculator that will tell you how long it might take to mine a block.
This is completely unrelated to the post you were quoting.
A transaction with a calculated fee (the fee is just an estimation of getting a confirmation after X minutes) does not have to confirm within this timeframe. This is depending on multiple factors.
The amount of transactions inside the mempool could increase, making your fee which currently was totally fine to get a confirmation the next block now isn't enough to get it confirmed within 10 blocks.
Or no blocks are being found at the moment. The difficulty still stays the same. And so does the average block time of 10 minutes. But 2 hours without a block isn't that unusual. But 3 Blocks within 10 minutes aren't that unusual either.
All these calculations of a fee are just a estimation. If you want to better estimate the fee, take a look at https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,8h. You will be able to guess the fee to use pretty clearly.
But still, OP is paying more fees for a speedier transaction (might user want to payment to be processed (a single confirmation) within an hour.
User put high fees in transaction , so that it will be confirmed in the next block.
If next block is not getting mined in next 3 hours then doing payment in next 1 hour is impossible for user whatever the fees user is paying.
Actually OP is saying he want to do speedier transaction by putting more fees but block mining speed becomes a limiting factor.
It is a measure of how long it will take the hashing power of the network to find a solution to the block hash. The difficulty is calculated proportionally to the hashing power so that, on average, the block time is 10 minutes for Bitcoin. In reality, block times can vary. It is different for each Cryptocurrency.
Mmmmh thats nothing new. My problem is when the core client suggest a fee I use it. And when I use the fee for 20 min and it takes 3 hours with twice double the fee, it is lets say difficult for payment
This is completely unrelated to the post you were quoting.
A transaction with a calculated fee (the fee is just an estimation of getting a confirmation after X minutes) does not have to confirm within this timeframe. This is depending on multiple factors.
The amount of transactions inside the mempool could increase, making your fee which currently was totally fine to get a confirmation the next block now isn't enough to get it confirmed within 10 blocks.
Or no blocks are being found at the moment. The difficulty still stays the same. And so does the average block time of 10 minutes. But 2 hours without a block isn't that unusual. But 3 Blocks within 10 minutes aren't that unusual either.
All these calculations of a fee are just a estimation. If you want to better estimate the fee, take a look at https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,8h. You will be able to guess the fee to use pretty clearly.
It is a measure of how long it will take the hashing power of the network to find a solution to the block hash. The difficulty is calculated proportionally to the hashing power so that, on average, the block time is 10 minutes for Bitcoin. In reality, block times can vary. It is different for each Cryptocurrency.
Mmmmh thats nothing new. My problem is when the core client suggest a fee I use it. And when I use the fee for 20 min and it takes 3 hours with twice double the fee, it is lets say difficult for payment
By the way one of my post was deleted. So as I said crypto community should not see BTC as the holy cow.
@OP.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always increased with each passing month and
This simply isn't true, hashrate (thus difficulty) has decreased many times in the past.
I know, I was quoting the general trend , even if it dipped it made up for the dip.
I understand , my comment "it never dipped" was wrong , but in my mind I was seeing a linear line that is going up almost every month.
@OP.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.
This simply isn't true, hashrate (thus difficulty) has decreased many times in the past.
So you tell something now in beta is the future of payment.
Every thing has been in beta once. The LN is still in development stage. Did you expect the LN would be built within a few weeks ?
Otherwise you say something about prooved and secure.
This is right. The bitcoin blockchain is the most secured one.
Not a single attack on bitcoin could really damage its network.
And since it has the most hashrate (and the most 'work' being used to mine) it is the crypto which needs the highest 'investment' to get attacked.
And also a 51% attack of BTC is possible. 2 pools more then 50% of hash rate.
Everything is possible.
But both pools would effectively go bankrupt if they would decide to perform 51% attacks.
They would be left with worthless hardware and coins without any value anymore.
These pools actually are the most ambicious one letting bitcoin NOT get attacked. Thats how they make their money.
The network behaves as it was initially designed. Every 2016 blocks there is a retarget, the difficulty gets adjusted upwards or downwards so the AVERAGE time between two blocks is ~10 minutes.
You are correct tough, if the networks hashrate would drop to 50% in the first 10 minutes after a retarget, it would take about 4 weeks untill the next retarget, at which point the time between two blocks would once again be ~10 minutes. This is still "working as designed" tough, theoretically, there is no problem... Sure, blocks would probably be completely full for the next 4 weeks, a fee war could start, it would take a longer time to get a confirmation,.... But everything would sort itself out, without technical problems.
The fact that at this moment, the time between the last 6 blocks was ~20 minutes (i didn't verify this): no problem, it's completely possible... That's why the difficulty is adjusted so the AVERAGE time between two blocks is ~10minutes, and that's also why we don't retarget every 10 or 20 blocks (if we would retarget to often, the difficulty would jump up and down quite a bit, since the number of samples would be to low).
Solving a block requires the miners to increment a nonce in the block header, then create a sha256d hash of this new header and check if the result in under the current target. It's possible that after a miner receives a new block and start working on the next block, he finds a header whose sha256d hash is under the target in less than a second, it's also possible he'll never find a valid block...
Thanks for clearing the misconception of 2 weeks. so it is exactly 2016 block (14 days *24 hours * 6 block in an hour).
@OP.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.
So the fee was 6000 sat per kB. I think that is ok.
That's 6 sat/B. 10 would have been needed for an instant confirmation today. Can be seen here.
I tried to use Lightning network, all wallets even the offcial one I used were "not compaible" to the test I made (this picture you can paint for 1 sat per pixel)
The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.
What is the real difference. Some special nodes confirm the transaction faster like instant send in Dash?? Thats it, nothing really special
No. Thats not how it works.
At least use 3 minutes of your precious time to check the link i have posted (to have at least a bit of knowledge regarding LN):
If you instead don't want to spend 15 minutes of your life, you might look at the wikipedia article instead.
Bitcoin was the first crypto that is ok. But dont treat it all like al holy cow. There have been some optimising with fork and thats ok too.
And also a 51% attack of BTC is possible. 2 pools more then 50% of hash rate. Now it is not useful but think of the future
Eclair has a pretty stable mainnet version for android which I've been using for several weeks without a hitch. Lnd and c-lightning can also be run on the mainnet without having to reconfigure them
I was under the impression that most wallets were for 'testnet only'. And that you could configure them to run on mainnet, but it was recommended not to do so.
It may have been like that a few months ago. But unfortunately i don't remember, i could also be wrong.
--snip
The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.
--snip--
The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.
--snip--
Not necessarily true.. Eclair has a pretty stable mainnet version for android which I've been using for several weeks without a hitch. Lnd and c-lightning can also be run on the mainnet without having to reconfigure them (although you need a synced node for both)
So the fee was 6000 sat per kB. I think that is ok.
That's 6 sat/B. 10 would have been needed for an instant confirmation today. Can be seen here.
I tried to use Lightning network, all wallets even the offcial one I used were "not compaible" to the test I made (this picture you can paint for 1 sat per pixel)
The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.
What is the real difference. Some special nodes confirm the transaction faster like instant send in Dash?? Thats it, nothing really special
No. Thats not how it works.
At least use 3 minutes of your precious time to check the link i have posted (to have at least a bit of knowledge regarding LN):
If you instead don't want to spend 15 minutes of your life, you might look at the wikipedia article instead.
Jump to: