My conclusion for the time being is that zero time allows instant transfers whenever there isn't a malcious attack.
And although it has not been peer reviewed to stop double spending, it at least has been reviewed by poloniex enough to make it as secure as bitcoin with taking onlyone confirmation before deposit is clear.
So it takes less than 10 minutes per block and allows100 transactions/sec, while under a double spend attack ie never, and is istantaneous the rest of the time.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is pretty Frick in sweet isn't it?
Probably even a game changer.
Disclaimer, I own a few btc's worth of vnl, but I own more xmr and btc than I do VNL.
So does that mean Poloniex now accepts deposits using zerotime, or is there still a 1 confirmation hold time? I think the 1 confirmation was already pretty fast, so I do not know if this would even make much of a difference transferring to/from exchanges.
Where I could see zerotime being more useful would be in retail establishments, buying a bagel and coffee for instance, the proprietor could confirm in near real-time the transaction is valid. Of course, most places that accept Bitcoin already use Bitpay or something similar, and they transfer the already low risk to a third party, so even in this scenario I am not sure how useful this is in the real world. It sounds cool and all, but I am struggling to find the real value here.
Polinex still is waiting for 1 confirmation....maybe as people start to trust Zerotime they can remove it but exchanges won't want to rush to do that I imagine due to their focus on tight security.
I disagree about the third party instant processing of third parties like Bitpay.......I haven't used them but assuming they are almost like using some kind of PayPal for BTC I would say there is a world of difference even if the user experience feels the same. Many people might not care but the difference between centralised and decentralised is everything. Especially if the centralised option goes through the banking system.....kind of misses the point of cryptocurency IMO.