Topic: Funny pic on cryptocurrencies (Read 1688 times)
Its funny but dont be so rude with bitcoin.. its like internet explorer
False.
Assume a bad miner controls 25% of the network.
Coin A has a 1 minute block time
Coin B has a 10 minute block time.
After 2 blocks, there is a 1 in 16 chance the bad miner can double spend
After 3 blocks, there's a 1 in 64
After 4 blocks, there's a 1 in 256 chance.
4 minutes with coin A for that chance, 40 minutes for coin B.
Assume a bad miner controls 25% of the network.
Coin A has a 1 minute block time
Coin B has a 10 minute block time.
After 2 blocks, there is a 1 in 16 chance the bad miner can double spend
After 3 blocks, there's a 1 in 64
After 4 blocks, there's a 1 in 256 chance.
4 minutes with coin A for that chance, 40 minutes for coin B.
No, its not that simple, please do a bit more research. There are good reasons 10 minute target was chosen: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/will-a-shorter-block-time-be-helpful-or-harmful-to-bitcoin-and-its-future-232297
I don't understand why people think shorter block times are better. It only means you need more blocks for the same security, thus meaning the block chain just gets needlessly bigger. Many Bitcoiners understand that, but many Altcoiners don't want to understand that, because that would mean their Altcoin has no advantage at all.
False.
Assume a bad miner controls 25% of the network.
Coin A has a 1 minute block time
Coin B has a 10 minute block time.
After 2 blocks, there is a 1 in 16 chance the bad miner can double spend
After 3 blocks, there's a 1 in 64
After 4 blocks, there's a 1 in 256 chance.
4 minutes with coin A for that chance, 40 minutes for coin B.
I don't understand why people think shorter block times are better. It only means you need more blocks for the same security, thus meaning the block chain just gets needlessly bigger. Many Bitcoiners understand that, but many Altcoiners don't want to understand that, because that would mean their Altcoin has no advantage at all.
The real problem with short block target times is network propagation. Once a block is found, it's not relayed to the whole network instantly. If you see a cryptocurrency with short block target times, but still not a considerable amount of orphaned blocks, you know that the network of that coin is not properly decentralized, but rather centralized.
Yep, and you have to do a bunch of back-bending tricks to accommodate the fact that when you scale up the network, disparate parts of that network will have different states.
The ethereum blog post attempts to fine-tune this, but then you are left with a larger problem, the attack against the network becomes the alt-coin's biggest flaw. If I'm running an ISP, or I'm a government dedicated to screwing up your fast-confirmation coin, all I need to do is introduce random delays that screw your entire finely-tuned setup to dust.
But hey, that wouldn't happen, would it?
Funny
Took me an average of 10 minutes to get the joke. Although it did instantly propagate through my neural network.
This is the best post in the thread so far.
yeah I just seen this thread today and Im laughing my ass off, you op draw this or someone else did?
Took me an average of 10 minutes to get the joke. Although it did instantly propagate through my neural network.
This is the best post in the thread so far.
It only means you need more blocks for the same security
Completely false. The probability that a fork will succeed against an attacker with X percent hashpower after k confirmations is (X / (1 - X)) ^ k. There is no term for block time in there. You could argue that with a shorter blocktime an attack is cheaper so an attacker has more chances, eg. with 6s block times an attacker has 100x more chances, but that effect is linear, whereas the effect of adding more confirmations is exponential - assuming 30% hashpower, waiting for 12 confirmations instead of 6 reduces the probability of a fork succeeding by a factor of 161, so you get the same security in 72 seconds that Bitcoin gives you in 3600.
The smaller the confirmation time, the more likely that 2 competing blocks will be found at the same time.
Dogecoin rules over the outdated and boring Litecoin 
It only means you need more blocks for the same security
Completely false. The probability that a fork will succeed against an attacker with X percent hashpower after k confirmations is (X / (1 - X)) ^ k. There is no term for block time in there. You could argue that with a shorter blocktime an attack is cheaper so an attacker has more chances, eg. with 6s block times an attacker has 100x more chances, but that effect is linear, whereas the effect of adding more confirmations is exponential - assuming 30% hashpower, waiting for 12 confirmations instead of 6 reduces the probability of a fork succeeding by a factor of 161, so you get the same security in 72 seconds that Bitcoin gives you in 3600.
Agreed. If one reads the original bitcoin paper, they'll see that block time is not a factor in the main calculations about the security of confirmations.
Shorter block times do have some negatives (higher chance of blockchain forks which means that miners waste more time not helping secure the network, and miners with faster connections get more of an advantage over miners with slower connections because they waste less time on outdated blocks), but the security of confirmations certainly does not scale linearly with the block target time.
Anyway, it's overkill to wait for even a single confirmation for most small transactions. You can wait a few seconds to see if a double-spend starts trying to spread across the network. And in many situations where people pay with BTC, like subscribing to a service, or ordering something to be shipped to them, there's no need to make the customer wait around staring at a screen telling them to wait for confirmation. If a double-spend happens and the transaction fails, then the seller can cut off the user's subscription or stop preparing to ship the item, and then contact the customer.
It only means you need more blocks for the same security
Completely false. The probability that a fork will succeed against an attacker with X percent hashpower after k confirmations is (X / (1 - X)) ^ k. There is no term for block time in there. You could argue that with a shorter blocktime an attack is cheaper so an attacker has more chances, eg. with 6s block times an attacker has 100x more chances, but that effect is linear, whereas the effect of adding more confirmations is exponential - assuming 30% hashpower, waiting for 12 confirmations instead of 6 reduces the probability of a fork succeeding by a factor of 161, so you get the same security in 72 seconds that Bitcoin gives you in 3600.
Pathetic marketing attempt at promoting digibyte as one of the top 4. That coin has no place with the other three. I just took a look at coin market cap. Digibyte is #93. shit coin barely in the top 100.
So that it is, a Digibyte. Advertisement work, there are at least 2 people more that know of it now.
Pathetic marketing attempt at promoting digibyte as one of the top 4. That coin has no place with the other three. I just took a look at coin market cap. Digibyte is #93. shit coin barely in the top 100.
It reminds me the pic about internet browers 
So, BTC is like Internet Explorer, lol
Note: even if BTC is slow it's more popular than other crypto currencies
So, BTC is like Internet Explorer, lol
Note: even if BTC is slow it's more popular than other crypto currencies
I don't understand why people think shorter block times are better. It only means you need more blocks for the same security, thus meaning the block chain just gets needlessly bigger. Many Bitcoiners understand that, but many Altcoiners don't want to understand that, because that would mean their Altcoin has no advantage at all.
The real problem with short block target times is network propagation. Once a block is found, it's not relayed to the whole network instantly. If you see a cryptocurrency with short block target times, but still not a considerable amount of orphaned blocks, you know that the network of that coin is not properly decentralized, but rather centralized.
I don't understand why people think shorter block times are better. It only means you need more blocks for the same security, thus meaning the block chain just gets needlessly bigger. Many Bitcoiners understand that, but many Altcoiners don't want to understand that, because that would mean their Altcoin has no advantage at all.
Paypal also turned out to show it's support in 3-5 business days.
Took me an average of 10 minutes to get the joke. Although it did instantly propagate through my neural network.
That's what I was thinking. Haters moan at this, but you send bitcoin and the person receives them almost instantly, so this isn't an issue.
Additionally, there re many other ways to confirm without having to wait 7-10 minutes with BTC. A coinbase to coinbase transaction or a circle to circle transaction is instantly confirmed as fraud is prevented through KYC.
Sure, it would be nice if a future bitcoin sidechain or treechain had faster confirmations for everyday purchases but this image develops its humor by misleading the audience.
funny , but misleading as Bitcoin has the same transaction times of the rest. It would be more accurate if it referenced "confirmation times" but that still ignores confirmations happening offchain as well.
That's what I was thinking. Haters moan at this, but you send bitcoin and the person receives them almost instantly, so this isn't an issue.
Jump to: