Topic: I'm so tired of seeing the complaint on block confirmation times. Here's why. (Read 2634 times)

True, but still looks pretty centralized to me. https://blockchain.info/pools. If a merchant connects to the top 5 pools, he has access to more than 51% of the total hashrate. I'm not criticizing the network, it's working as intended. I'm saying that it wouldn't take much for a merchant to accept 0-confirmation transactions while getting reasonable security.

I'm so tired of seeing this complaint on block times.

If you are one of the complainers, then here's an experiment I want you to perform and then explain to me how it is possible:

Transfer some bitcoin to your blockchain.info wallet and watch/listen for how long it takes to get there. That's right-- It takes about 5 seconds until you hear the *Beep*. Now think for a second, how did they do that? If they aren't waiting for the entire 10 minute block confirmation time, then how do they know money was sent?

Any merchant can use this method to see a transaction propagating through a majority of the nodes! This whole "10 minute" thing is given way too much importance because it doesn't matter for 99% of transactions. It's just something that people can focus on to complain about because they don't understand this. You can see any transaction on the network nearly instantly.

So the problem must be with the wallet you are using if you can't see an instantaneous transaction. So, rather than complaining about 10 minutes confirmation time which frankly doesn't matter in 99% of situations, then the solution is to get your wallet to support the same technology that blockchain.info is using to SHOW the transaction occurring in near-realtime. Not to complain about 10 minute block times.

And you could argue that double-spends could make this method irrelevant, but if you are THAT concerned for the particular transaction, then go ahead and wait for the full confirmation. But that level of verification is a very small % of the time. Not many people want to steal a $5 cup of coffee bad enough to do a double spend on it. And yes, I'd wait for a few confirmations if I was transferring 100 BTC.

The point is: Block time doesn't matter for 99% of transactions. And for the 1% where it might matter (bigger purchases), 10-30 minutes is an acceptable waiting period!


A Misconception:
I think that the complaints about the block confirmation time stem from a misconception of what is happening with credit cards, which causes a person not to compare apples to apples:  Your credit card and debit transactions are not instantly confirmed either. At stores these transactions are given credibility "immediately" but still take 3-5 days to actually move through the payment processors between bank accounts. 3-5 days is WAY slower than 10-30 minutes for a block confirmation if you want to compare apples to apples. The problem is people aren't comparing apples to apples when they compare 10 minute block times with credit card transactions. The credit card transactions aren't "confirmed" either at this point. The payment processor is simply fronting the money (just like blockchain.info shows the transaction instantly) while the transaction goes through. These credit card payment processors are basing this method on the same logic that blockchain.info uses to instantly display transactions: It's the fact that most transactions aren't fraudulent. And who wastes their time trying to defraud a system to steal a $5 cup of coffee?



Correct comparisons:
Bitcoin purchase = appears within seconds on the network
Credit card purchase = appears to be completed within seconds
(TIE)

Bitcoin money is ACTUALLY transferred = 10 minute average time
Credit card money is ACTUALLY transferred = 3-5 days (or longer)*
(BITCOIN wins)

*If I remember correctly, Andreas Antonopoulos said in one of his videos that credit card transactions aren't settled for up to 30 days. Now how does that compare to 10 minutes?  Compare apples to apples.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Lastly, from satoshi's own mouth on the subject of verifying fast payments:

Litecoin is faster.
If you need to send money quick: use not bitcoin

not really luck.. in short if i hashed 1 number a minute and wanted an average 10 minute hash time.. each hash would be a number between 0 and 20..
10 times it would average below 10 minutes.. 10 times it would average over 10 minutes.. but on average.. you will get a 10 minute hashtime when repeated the process a few thousand times..

its not lucky that a block is found in 1 minute or unlucky if it too 19 minutes.. its all based on maths, not luck. so its just a standard feature of randomness that some take alot of time some take very little time.

but i do laugh that you complain about 30 minutes, whilst a western union takes much longer. and then for instance trying to get paypal or apple pay to transfer money to your bank and then to a FIAT ATM... even longer..

True, but still looks pretty centralized to me. https://blockchain.info/pools. If a merchant connects to the top 5 pools, he has access to more than 51% of the total hashrate. I'm not criticizing the network, it's working as intended. I'm saying that it wouldn't take much for a merchant to accept 0-confirmation transactions while getting reasonable security.

As I understand it, there are centralized mining farms, but not centralized mining pools. Miners on pools are free to jump to other pools. Mining farms don't mine on pools, but compete with them instead. Miners don't generally allow a pool to get too large. I realize that pools can conspire. As cypherdoc is fond of saying, it's not a fault with the Bitcoin protocol, it's a human choice.

I was talking about the main mining pool. I meant centralized - not mature. You are free to disagree though.

\

It isn't fast hashing, it is just luck.  I've had to sit around a BTC ATM machine an extra 30 minutes because hashes were coming through that were longer than 10 minutes.

The network is more centralized than we think it is. Once the first transaction reaches the main mining pools, it's practically impossible to do a double-spend. A merchant could maintain a direct connection to them and make sure that it was propagated there before handling the goods. It would only take a few seconds of waiting.

Yes, but if two simultaneous spends get detected then both transactions can be cancelled. And if one of the transactions was first, even if only by seconds, then it will propagate a majority of the network more quickly (exponentially) and be accepted by miners while the second one is rejected. This is as satoshi explains in his post (see link in OP).

This would be coded by payment processors to make the threat of double spends a non-factor. satoshi explains this and it makes sense if you think about how it could be implemented.

It helps if you can think like a programmer to imagine how this would be implemented in a workable fashion and all its ramifications.

Here is a good post from one of the core bitcoin devs that explains how he / they are actively seeking to deal with foreseen scalability issues.

https://bitcoin-foundation.ghost.io/a-scalability-roadmap/