ONE Minute Blocks! Bitcoin as fast as Dogecoin, faster than Litecoin? VOTE - page 3.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: pawel7777 on May 12, 2015, 09:26:46 AM

Is there any other real benefit of 1 minute blocks other than quicker confirmation when depositing to exchange/gambling site or alike?

Even that is unlikely. Exchanges already require a different number of confirmations based on the altcoin's block confirmation time. Anyone expecting exchanges to maintain the "6 confirmations" status quo if Bitcoin switched to a 1-minute confirmation time is delusional.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Is there any other real benefit of 1 minute blocks other than quicker confirmation when depositing to exchange/gambling site or alike?
1 minute is still too long for small, real life transactions, so nothing changes here.

Would it have any positive effect on required bandwidth capacity for nodes or increased tx/second, or none at all?

Troonetpt

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

I believe there is a reason why satoshi choose ten minute a block. When we reduce the block time, there will have more orphan block, it's not a good thing.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

People who complain about confirmation times either don't use Bitcoin at all, or use it exclusively in exchanges (who do need the confirmation because the risk of someone trying to cheat the system is higher). Real purchasers made with Bitcoin are accepted with 0 confirmations with no problem.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Elwar on May 12, 2015, 06:39:00 AM

Should we just post this every 5 posts on every confirmation thread on the board?

Bitcoin transactions take seconds. Bitcoin confirmations take 10 minutes.
Credit card transactions take seconds. Credit card confirmations take 180 days.

Confirmations != transactions

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Quote from: chaoman on May 11, 2015, 11:29:45 AM

We are on the cutting edge of technology. The idea that the most advanced transfer of value system invented by human beings should have to wait 10 minutes is ludicrous. Most people railing against this are afraid of change which is ironic because they are talking about the revolutionary bitcoin.

The transfer of value does not take 10 minutes.

Should we just post this every 5 posts on every confirmation thread on the board?

Bitcoin transactions take seconds. Bitcoin confirmations take 10 minutes.
Credit card transactions take seconds. Credit card confirmations take 180 days.

Confirmations != transactions

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: fox19891989 on May 11, 2015, 01:26:58 PM

I think thats a really good idea.

We would also need to adjust the actual block reward to 1/10th of the planned reward so that we still reach 21000000 on schedule.
On the subject of the block halvings, how would you feel about gradually ramping down the block reward instead of having a sudden halving every few years? I do not propose that we violate the 21000000 limit or the general principle of reducing block rewards over time, just eliminating the sudden drops. I am concerned about the sudden and unpredictable effects on BTC and mining markets.

I liked very much the effect the sudden halving seemed to have last time. It made me a ton of money.

It's standard practice in Bitcoinland to take with high confidence that past performance is a guarantee of future results. Nobody has ever tried certain kinds of attacks so it is absurd to think that they ever will. Nobody has tried to introduce white/black/red-listing so of course nobody ever will. Nobody has ever tried to place restrictions what type of traffic traverses the global corporate owned internet (except when they have) so of course that could never happen.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on May 11, 2015, 12:16:23 PM

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Indeed. No matter the blocktime, a blockchain is never going to be real-time enough to make the difference for most applications. For example, NASDAQ's colored coin project is never going to try to do real-time trading on the blockchain, because they have to accommodate zillions of trades per second; even one second blocktimes would be way too slow.

Bitcoin isn't a payment system, although it's commonly described that way. It's a settlement system, as well as a store of value system. Faster blocks might be better, but the level of risk in changing what isn't broken is pretty unjustifiable until we have more definitive evidence of both the usefulness and the safety of the change.

I think Gavin only brought this up to take a little break from the blocksize debate, as he and others were losing sleep over it. He had to know what effect it would have to say that even in a random comment. Changing the subject and proposing something more radical to soften up the opposition are time-honored negotiating tactics.

fox19891989

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

I think thats a really good idea.

We would also need to adjust the actual block reward to 1/10th of the planned reward so that we still reach 21000000 on schedule.
On the subject of the block halvings, how would you feel about gradually ramping down the block reward instead of having a sudden halving every few years? I do not propose that we violate the 21000000 limit or the general principle of reducing block rewards over time, just eliminating the sudden drops. I am concerned about the sudden and unpredictable effects on BTC and mining markets.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Although a bigger (and better) sample size would be desirable as I write this, it's heartening to see that 5% of voting visitors understand Bitcoin in a sophisticated way and voted for decreasing the block frequency.

5% is more than enough to support a very healthy system when the Pied Piper (Hearndresen) leads the kids away.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

satashito

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

No, 10 min is good.
I think they shouldn't change it.It disorder the distribution plan

ChuckBuck

hero member

Activity: 1372

Merit: 783

better everyday ♥

Don't care if it stays at 10 or lowers to 1 either, for confirmation times.

As long as "transaction time" is virtually non existent or a few seconds, then I'm on board with any change in block times.

thejaytiesto

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1014

Honestly, who cares about 1 or 10 minute transaction confirmation? Do you actually sit on your ass 180 days (what it takes for a credit card to get confirmed) when you do a purchase?

All that matters is having a solid network, and we have it with Bitcoin. 0 transactions is enough to assume everything was OK. I don't get the obsession with needing a lower confirmation transaction, even if 1 is cool, I don't care if the pros destroy the cons. I would only care about confirmation time if I was buying a damn house or something super important.

chaoman

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

We are on the cutting edge of technology. The idea that the most advanced transfer of value system invented by human beings should have to wait 10 minutes is ludicrous. Most people railing against this are afraid of change which is ironic because they are talking about the revolutionary bitcoin.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

i would vote: No.

---

here are some more infos:

Copy/pasted from #bitcoin IRC:

Jeepers creepers, I can’t have a half-baked opinion on ANYTHING anymore, can I?

I do think 1-minute blocks would pass a cost/benefit analysis; benefits would be less variance in confirmations-for-whatever-level-of-security (e.g. wait 60 1-minute confirmations has much lower variance than wait 6 10-minute confirmations).

I think it would probably encourage mining decentralization. Easier to solo mine if you’re competing for 1.25 BTC 1-minute block instead of a 12.5 BTC 10-minute block.

… that might not be true, would have to run the numbers for disadvantage due to higher orphan rates....

I have no opinion on whether or not the adjust-difficulty-every-2-weeks should be changed if the block time was changed, but that’s something else to think about.

Disadvantage is that SPV nodes would have to download more headers, but that’s not a huge disadvantage and I think the benefits of an SPV node finding out about a re-org / double-spend quicker probably outweigh them.

One minute is not fast enough for real-time payments, so that’s neither an advantage or disadvantage.

Whether or not to change the 10-minute block time is a separate issue (with its own pros and cons) from whether or not the max block size should change. Status-quo with a faster block time would be 100K max blocks, each with one-tenth the current mining reward.

http://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen

fryarminer

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Bitcoin is like a committee of a million members. It's hard enough to get three members to decide something - but a million? There will never be any changes in Bitcoin because we will never get everyone to decide something!

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: Klestin on May 11, 2015, 09:25:25 AM

I really don't get the benefit of switching to 5-minute confirmations. With 5-minute confirmations, it will take 12 confirmations to reach the assurance against reversal that is currently met with 6 confirmations. Therefore, that's a wash.

The only reasonable area to focus on is in single-confirmation transactions. What are these used for? If users are grumbling currently about occasionally having to wait an hour for that first confirmation, is it actually a solution if this improves to 30 minutes?

In retail purchases, I've never run into anyone who required waiting for a confirmation.

To me, this is a bit like seeing retail customers moaning about credit card transaction non-reversal confirmation times, and complaining that they're currently 120 days and wanting them reduced to 60. Who the hell cares?

But if you want to pay a coffee with a credit card you will have to wait 180 days until they let you go. Thats not realistic credit cards are doomed to fail!!!111

I dont see the point either, I doubt this is actually an issue for anyone. Yes when doing trades online with some anonymous person Id wait for a single (or more) transformation, but I also dont think thats a problem. One can just do something else for 30 minutes (e.g. read/post here Wink

), come back and finish the trade.

see also here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1057801.0;topicseen

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

I really don't get the benefit of switching to 5-minute confirmations. With 5-minute confirmations, it will take 12 confirmations to reach the assurance against reversal that is currently met with 6 confirmations. Therefore, that's a wash.

The only reasonable area to focus on is in single-confirmation transactions. What are these used for? If users are grumbling currently about occasionally having to wait an hour for that first confirmation, is it actually a solution if this improves to 30 minutes?

In retail purchases, I've never run into anyone who required waiting for a confirmation.

To me, this is a bit like seeing retail customers moaning about credit card transaction non-reversal confirmation times, and complaining that they're currently 120 days and wanting them reduced to 60. Who the hell cares?

Havelivi

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

i had voted for No. However, 5 minute blocks are best. i think that is more better time for blocks genereating than waiting for too long period to transaction get confirmation.

Topic: ONE Minute Blocks! Bitcoin as fast as Dogecoin, faster than Litecoin? VOTE - page 3. (Read 4411 times)