must be greatly larger than the time it would take to get blocks broadcast
across the network or you risk losing consensus (too many different chains going on
by different miners solving blocks).
If this is indeed correct, then this is the smartest answer I've seen from the "conservative" part.
I said that in response to the suggestion that someone posted about one-second blocks.
This wouldn't be a factor for one minute blocks but I still don't think those are a good
idea because I don't see the benefit relative to the risk of changing the protocol.
The one second block "proposal" was an over-sarcastic answer to my post telling that quicker blocks may be good in the future.
Even if it's not an issue now, we still expect the network to grow, so maybe 1 minute is indeed to small. Better have a big margin there.
The benefit vs the risks on changing the protocol is indeed small now. But I think that the proposal to discuss this is good.
Because from such discussions, especially if they are constructive, we can gather a couple of good changes which, together, may make sense done all together (the benefit bigger than the risks).
And mho is that at some point Bitcoin will need a big change (fork).
Currently the "conservative" members are very strong - some with good arguments (which I respect), some not - and give the impression that Bitcoin is afraid of changes. Which is also not good. Because somebody that wants to invest for long time in Bitcoin would like to see that, with good reasons, Bitcoin will do all it takes, even a fork, to stay the best crypto coin.
Right now that doesn't seem to happen. At least that's my feeling.
Of course, it doesn't count much, because I am just a tiny bitcoiner, but how about the bigger ones? How about the ones to come? Selling needs good product and good strategy too.