Halve the block generation interval now! - page 2.

jak1

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: alyssa85 on March 24, 2016, 10:01:57 AM

Quote from: Jet Cash on March 24, 2016, 05:18:37 AM

Quote

First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often.

Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699

It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval?

You mean copy alts like Doge and ETH?

No it does not mean Copy Doge or ETH. It only means that block size should be reduced to reduce the time
between transaction. Most of the people waiting for halving and thinking it will solve the matter, but i don't think so.

alyssa85

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1088

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: Jet Cash on March 24, 2016, 05:18:37 AM

Quote

First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often.

Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699

It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval?

You mean copy alts like Doge and ETH?

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

Quote from: ?? on ??

Have you ever heard about zero confirmation? Some merchants accept zero confirmation for near-instant transaction.
Many people say zero confirmation is risky, but as long as users put recommended/default tx fee & it's not big transaction, you don't need to wait.

Well that answers the previous post. 20 minutes is the time to get one confirmation. ie. 2 blocks.

0 confirmation is fine for faucet earnings, but if I'm buying 5 Bitcoins for cash in McDonalds car park, I would prefer to wait for a couple of confirmations at least. The same applies if I am accepting Bitcoin for the sale of a car.

tertius993

hero member

Activity: 1029

Merit: 712

Quote from: Jet Cash on March 24, 2016, 06:52:59 AM

I was rather hoping that someone who is more knowledgeable than me could prove or dispove my comment. It seems that there has been a lot of discussion about block intervals over the years, and there are quite a few people supporting the concept.

I'm looking at it from a commercial point of view. An average of 20 minute for 1 confirmation of a transaction is too long in the 21st Century. At some time it will have to be reduced or Bitcoin will never get out of the playground.

First why do you say the average is now 20 minutes? Average block time is 10 minutes, and since you won't normally submit a transaction immediately after a block is solved, your average "wait" time for a confirm should be more like 5 minutes.

Secondly if the block time is "really" a commercial issue then why isn't Litecoin with 5 minute blocks the coin of choice for commercial users? There is a solution right there, ready to be used.

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

I was rather hoping that someone who is more knowledgeable than me could prove or dispove my comment. It seems that there has been a lot of discussion about block intervals over the years, and there are quite a few people supporting the concept.

I'm looking at it from a commercial point of view. An average of 20 minute for 1 confirmation of a transaction is too long in the 21st Century. At some time it will have to be reduced or Bitcoin will never get out of the playground.

tertius993

hero member

Activity: 1029

Merit: 712

Then you will also understand that "occasionally" having 5 minute blocks is much different from "always" having 5 minute blocks (on average of course).

Rather than just saying "change this, it'll be OK" why don't you:

A) analyse the current orphans and cross-reference to the actual block generation times at the point the orphan occurred and

B) show how you will maintain security given a 5 minute block interval (where security is based on the principle of proof of work)

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

Quote from: tertius993 on March 24, 2016, 06:13:19 AM

That is not how it works. If over a period of 2016 blocks the average block time is more than 10 minutes then the difficulty will be adjusted to bring the average back to 10 minutes. The protocol does not think "oh, those 6 blocks were a bit slow, we'd better speed up for a few hours" instead it adjusts in quite long periods. Natural variation means that some blocks will be slower and some will be shorter - adjusting difficulty every 2016 blocks means that a lot of that variability is ironed out naturally.

Even if you changed to 5 minute blocks you would still get variability and some blocks would still be more than 10 minutes - what would you want to do then?

I understand all that. My point was that the current difficulty is set to generate blocks at an average of 10 minute intervals. Because it is an average, some 10 minute "slots" will be barren, and some will have more than one block relayed. I think I saw one interval that had 4 blocks generated within the 10 minutes. My point was that if the current system can cope with a 2.5 minute generation interval as part of its normal operation, then a change to a 5 minute interval can't be as difficult as some people suggest.

tertius993

hero member

Activity: 1029

Merit: 712

Quote from: Jet Cash on March 24, 2016, 04:36:29 AM

Quote from: GermanGiant on March 24, 2016, 04:08:25 AM

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues.

Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations.

That is not how it works. If over a period of 2016 blocks the average block time is more than 10 minutes then the difficulty will be adjusted to bring the average back to 10 minutes. The protocol does not think "oh, those 6 blocks were a bit slow, we'd better speed up for a few hours" instead it adjusts in quite long periods. Natural variation means that some blocks will be slower and some will be shorter - adjusting difficulty every 2016 blocks means that a lot of that variability is ironed out naturally.

Even if you changed to 5 minute blocks you would still get variability and some blocks would still be more than 10 minutes - what would you want to do then?

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Quote from: Jet Cash on March 24, 2016, 04:36:29 AM

Quote from: GermanGiant on March 24, 2016, 04:08:25 AM

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues.

Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations.

You need to change a lot of rules for that, fundamental rules, mess with difficulty, immediately halve the reward and then set up the new mining reward rules, also new debates how big the block size should be, keep 1 MB or also halve the block size, it's a huge can of worms...

It's better just use litecoin.

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

Quote

First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often.

Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699

It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval?

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

halving the block time will reuslt in more orphan, we already have a % of orphan so thi is not recommended

there is a coming improvement to this known as a subchain(not to be confused with sidechain)

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: GermanGiant on March 24, 2016, 04:08:25 AM

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Bit of exaggeration, but yes, in general shorter block times are considered less secure. But, as proved by multiple altcoins, it can work quite well. There's nothing magical about "10 minutes" (afaik).

@OP - some old discussion which you might find useful: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2446457

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

Quote from: GermanGiant on March 24, 2016, 04:08:25 AM

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues.

Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations.

GermanGiant

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 501

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

Quote from: Risackwpsp on March 24, 2016, 04:01:43 AM

yes, the transaction is real slow. the size of the block should be increased ASAP

Did you read my post? I'm not talking about transactions, I'm talking about blocks. Increasing the block size will just make matters worse, and probably create more orphan blocks.

Risackwpsp

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

yes, the transaction is real slow. the size of the block should be increased ASAP

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2474

https://JetCash.com

Never mind the rubbish about blocksize. I've just been looking at blockchain.info and the block at height 404043 took 31 minutes to find. In the last 2 hours only 6 blocks have been relayed. With time intervals like this, Bitcoin has got no chance of mainstream adoption in the modern electronic age.

I assume that blockchain.info is reporting acurately.

Topic: Halve the block generation interval now! - page 2. (Read 1282 times)