Topic: Why not 5Btc every 1 minute? (Read 2170 times)
There's no problem with POS. Double-spending is difficult even without any confirmations, and transactions propagate in seconds. Unless we're talking about a large purchase (equivalent to hundreds of dollars maybe?) there's very little risk in accepting the payment immediately. This was of course discussed before.
We've discussed this plenty before. In summary, here's what Satoshi himself had to say:
If propagation is 1 minute, then 10 minutes was a good guess. Then nodes are only losing 10% of their work (1 minute/10 minutes). If the CPU time wasted by latency was a more significant share, there may be weaknesses I haven't thought of. An attacker would not be affected by latency, since he's chaining his own blocks, so he would have an advantage. The chain would temporarily fork more often due to latency.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4382.msg67351#msg67351
Further reading:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3441.0
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5567.0
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4382.0
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=423.0
Quote from: satoshi
Quote from: mike
Another is the 10 minute block target. I understand this was chosen to
allow transactions to propagate through the network. However existing
large P2P networks like BGP can propagate new data worldwide in <1
minute.
allow transactions to propagate through the network. However existing
large P2P networks like BGP can propagate new data worldwide in <1
minute.
If propagation is 1 minute, then 10 minutes was a good guess. Then nodes are only losing 10% of their work (1 minute/10 minutes). If the CPU time wasted by latency was a more significant share, there may be weaknesses I haven't thought of. An attacker would not be affected by latency, since he's chaining his own blocks, so he would have an advantage. The chain would temporarily fork more often due to latency.
Further reading:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3441.0
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5567.0
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4382.0
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=423.0
I fail to see how multiplying the amount of data needed to be transferred to the clients by 10 is a good thing for them. You brought this up because you want solo mining to be viable for you which you made clear at the start of this thread. As I pointed out to you that would be a very marginal increase in profits for you.
The update time for transactions weren't mentioned in this thread before I brought it up. I doubt anyone is going to take you suggestions seriously if you keep changing your story but to be fair it wasn't a very well thought out idea to begin with.
The update time for transactions weren't mentioned in this thread before I brought it up. I doubt anyone is going to take you suggestions seriously if you keep changing your story but to be fair it wasn't a very well thought out idea to begin with.
I think you should read my first post again. I said nothing of the sort, didn't even mention miners and no I'm not interested in solo mining or even pool mining for that matter.
Quote
It seems to me the biggest barrier for BTC to overcome in terms of widespread adoption is POS. And with a 10 minute delay for first confirmation this is problematic at best.
When the proposed change allowing partial databases is implemented this won't be a problem. On the other hand someone being able to walk into a coffee shop and buy a coffee with a 1 minute delay is vastly better than having to wait 10 mins.
In any case I wasn't actually arguing that the change should be made, I was asking if there was any technical reason why it was made that way in the first place that would preclude such a change being considered.
I fail to see how multiplying the amount of data needed to be transferred to the clients by 10 is a good thing for them. You brought this up because you want solo mining to be viable for you which you made clear at the start of this thread. As I pointed out to you that would be a very marginal increase in profits for you.
The update time for transactions weren't mentioned in this thread before I brought it up. I doubt anyone is going to take you suggestions seriously if you keep changing your story but to be fair it wasn't a very well thought out idea to begin with.
The update time for transactions weren't mentioned in this thread before I brought it up. I doubt anyone is going to take you suggestions seriously if you keep changing your story but to be fair it wasn't a very well thought out idea to begin with.
I don't understand the second part of your post. You were arguing that a block every 1 min would benefit miners and I say that the benefit would be marginal at best. The 10 times longer block chain would be a downside for the average non-mining user so if you really care about them then you'll see that this is a silly idea.
No I'm arguing that such a change would not benefit miners at all, it would benefit users and that is more important. The only negative impact on miners would be a larger database size. The larger blockchain for users is not an issue, it's already predicted to become a problem in the future and is dealt with via the plan for future client to only need part of the database. The same would still apply.
Each block is basically two hashes and some misc info. They would stay exactly the same size even if generated once every minute or even once every 5 seconds.
I don't understand the second part of your post. You were arguing that a block every 1 min would benefit miners and I say that the benefit would be marginal at best. The 10 times longer block chain would be a downside for the average non-mining user so if you really care about them then you'll see that this is a silly idea.
Basically this is what my idea is (guesses for sizes):I don't understand the second part of your post. You were arguing that a block every 1 min would benefit miners and I say that the benefit would be marginal at best. The 10 times longer block chain would be a downside for the average non-mining user so if you really care about them then you'll see that this is a silly idea.
50BTC (sent every 5mins): Header(100bytes) + Transaction(50 transactions, 5MB) + Footer(20bytes)
5BTC (sent every 30sec): Header(100bytes) + Transaction(5 transactions, 0.5MB) + Footer(20bytes)
so it would end up being slightly large in the long ruin but it would make up for that with increased speed and efficiency
Because 60 seconds is not enough time to tell all nodes about your purchase of a candy bar. TCP times out after 2 minutes, for example.
10 minutes is a compromise between allowing propagation delays and fact transaction times. Remember also that the blocks are not exactly 10 minutes apart. Some block may appear within 2 minutes of the previous one, and some blocks may not show up for 20 minutes.
10 minutes is a compromise between allowing propagation delays and fact transaction times. Remember also that the blocks are not exactly 10 minutes apart. Some block may appear within 2 minutes of the previous one, and some blocks may not show up for 20 minutes.
Each block is basically two hashes and some misc info. They would stay exactly the same size even if generated once every minute or even once every 5 seconds.
I don't understand the second part of your post. You were arguing that a block every 1 min would benefit miners and I say that the benefit would be marginal at best. The 10 times longer block chain would be a downside for the average non-mining user so if you really care about them then you'll see that this is a silly idea.
I don't understand the second part of your post. You were arguing that a block every 1 min would benefit miners and I say that the benefit would be marginal at best. The 10 times longer block chain would be a downside for the average non-mining user so if you really care about them then you'll see that this is a silly idea.
The pool fees are so low anyway that they're negligible for anyone that need a pool to be able to mine. I don't think this idea would benefit miners at all. The upside would be a theoretically higher update time for transactions (unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the system work) but I don't think that would make up for have 10 times more blocks.
Unless I misunderstad block = header + transactions + footer. Transactions would be 1/10th the size so it wouldn't be 10 times the files size but it would be more.
With respect I think your view of what bitcoin is for is a bit topsy turvy. If bitcoin is to succeed it will driven 99.9% by users who have no interest in mining. If we don't have those users there's nothing to give BTCs value and therefore no reason to mine. So benefitting miners really isn't the point. Benefiting users is.
The only problem i have with this logic is that even when there are no more BTC to find there will still need to be miners to verify the payments and the network will reward them with the transactions fees that will eventually be enforced
If miners = happy, users = happy (fast transactions and verifications) otherwise the system goes down the drain.
The pool fees are so low anyway that they're negligible for anyone that need a pool to be able to mine. I don't think this idea would benefit miners at all. The upside would be a theoretically higher update time for transactions (unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the system work) but I don't think that would make up for have 10 times more blocks.
Unless I misunderstad block = header + transactions + footer. Transactions would be 1/10th the size so it wouldn't be 10 times the files size but it would be more.
With respect I think your view of what bitcoin is for is a bit topsy turvy. If bitcoin is to succeed it will driven 99.9% by users who have no interest in mining. If we don't have those users there's nothing to give BTCs value and therefore no reason to mine. So benefitting miners really isn't the point. Benefiting users is.
While you made a few mistakes on the details of the mechanics you're basically right. There would be 10 times as many blocks, the block size would stay exactly the same though.
The pool fees are so low anyway that they're negligible for anyone that need a pool to be able to mine. I don't think this idea would benefit miners at all. The upside would be a theoretically higher update time for transactions (unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the system work) but I don't think that would make up for have 10 times more blocks.
The pool fees are so low anyway that they're negligible for anyone that need a pool to be able to mine. I don't think this idea would benefit miners at all. The upside would be a theoretically higher update time for transactions (unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the system work) but I don't think that would make up for have 10 times more blocks.
Quote
Except they wouldn't be 1/10th the size.... Just look at the length of these strings as a somewhat silly example:
"Congratulations you solved a block and have now been awarded 50 BTC!"
"Congratulations you solved a block and have now been awarded 5 BTC!"
Not exactly what's written to the block chain, but you can see what I mean that it won't make each block 1/10th of the size by dropping to 5btc.
"Congratulations you solved a block and have now been awarded 50 BTC!"
"Congratulations you solved a block and have now been awarded 5 BTC!"
Not exactly what's written to the block chain, but you can see what I mean that it won't make each block 1/10th of the size by dropping to 5btc.
I get what your going for but for the most part chains work by having a small header to say "hey this is me" and a very small footer to say "im done =P" then the rest is just the data to be solved, which can be any length because it's specified by the header.
Revamp of your example:
Gratz = Header
BTC! = Footer
"Gratz you account has been given the sum of 50 BTC!"
"Gratz you won 5 BTC!"
I don't know the specifics, but the 10 minute window was chosen to make it less likely that an attacker can take over the block chain (Because they'd need far more processing power to do so).
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
the probibility for this would stay the same because the chain would be smaller so therefore the damage done if it is taken over is smaller. So if 10 small chains were taken over it would equate to 1 large 50BTC chain
Now that you mention it, if we're talking about the file size of the block chain, it'd be much much bigger if we switched to a 1-minute window.
well wouldn't it just be 10x the # of chains at /10 the size?
Except they wouldn't be 1/10th the size.... Just look at the length of these strings as a somewhat silly example:
"Congratulations you solved a block and have now been awarded 50 BTC!"
"Congratulations you solved a block and have now been awarded 5 BTC!"
Not exactly what's written to the block chain, but you can see what I mean that it won't make each block 1/10th of the size by dropping to 5btc.
I don't know the specifics, but the 10 minute window was chosen to make it less likely that an attacker can take over the block chain (Because they'd need far more processing power to do so).
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
the probibility for this would stay the same because the chain would be smaller so therefore the damage done if it is taken over is smaller. So if 10 small chains were taken over it would equate to 1 large 50BTC chain
Now that you mention it, if we're talking about the file size of the block chain, it'd be much much bigger if we switched to a 1-minute window.
well wouldn't it just be 10x the # of chains at /10 the size?
I don't know the specifics, but the 10 minute window was chosen to make it less likely that an attacker can take over the block chain (Because they'd need far more processing power to do so).
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
the probibility for this would stay the same because the chain would be smaller so therefore the damage done if it is taken over is smaller. So if 10 small chains were taken over it would equate to 1 large 50BTC chain
Now that you mention it, if we're talking about the file size of the block chain, it'd be much much bigger if we switched to a 1-minute window.
I don't know the specifics, but the 10 minute window was chosen to make it less likely that an attacker can take over the block chain (Because they'd need far more processing power to do so).
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
the probibility for this would stay the same because the chain would be smaller so therefore the damage done if it is taken over is smaller. So if 10 small chains were taken over it would equate to 1 large 50BTC chain
it is because later on in the chain the reward will go from 50 to 25BTC and even further on it will be 12.5BTC and so on till we got the 21m or so BTC, so it is def possible for the values to change
doesn't really alter the proposition though, just divide the expected time and the expected reward by the same number. If you divided by ten then for the miners it would have the same net effect as forming a pool with 10 identcal machines, but for the end users (who really drive bitcoin) it means 9 mins less delay to get a confirmation.
srry i was directing that towards fascistmuffin with the protocol change post
it is because later on in the chain the reward will go from 50 to 25BTC and even further on it will be 12.5BTC and so on till we got the 21m or so BTC, so it is def possible for the values to change
doesn't really alter the proposition though, just divide the expected time and the expected reward by the same number. If you divided by ten then for the miners it would have the same net effect as forming a pool with 10 identcal machines, but for the end users (who really drive bitcoin) it means 9 mins less delay to get a confirmation.
I don't know the specifics, but the 10 minute window was chosen to make it less likely that an attacker can take over the block chain (Because they'd need far more processing power to do so).
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
Someone else will surely be able to explain it better than me.
it is because later on in the chain the reward will go from 50 to 25BTC and even further on it will be 12.5BTC and so on till we got the 21m or so BTC, so it is def possible for the values to change
Jump to: