ONE Minute Blocks! Bitcoin as fast as Dogecoin, faster than Litecoin? VOTE

[solex]

Do you think that 1 minute blocks are feasible?

Maybe, but there are costs.
If 10 minute blocks take 2-3 seconds to propagate then this wastes 2-3 seconds of network hashing power per 10 minutes. With 10x as many blocks (smaller), propagation speed would only be slightly less, so 20 seconds of hashing power wasted each 10 minutes. Orphan costs for miners which are not so well connected in the network are worse too, so centralization pressures in mining are increased.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

I fear this would have a lot of consequences. I'd rather we did this slowly, from 10 to 8, from 8 to 6 or 5, over the years.

[Q7]

I'm not against the idea because basically in the end what we want to achieve is to be able to handle anticipated increase in the  number of future transactions. More over this would also be positive in terms of making confirmation become faster. The only worry i would have is the side effect from orphaned blocks. We are talking about cost here per btc

[shorena]

I'm not against the idea because basically in the end what we want to achieve is to be able to handle anticipated increase in the  number of future transactions. More over this would also be positive in terms of making confirmation become faster. The only worry i would have is the side effect from orphaned blocks. We are talking about cost here per btc

10 MB per 10 Minutes are still a limit we will reach one day. How often do we need to keep pushing the problem into the future? I dont think any of the core devs is naive enough to believe that a limit increase to X will be a permanent solution, regardless how big X is.

[Elwar]

I think those that are worried about 10 minute confirmations are mostly people that don't use Bitcoin very often. "10 minute confirmations!?! WTFOMG!! I won't wait that long at a fast food restaurant!"

transaction time != confirmation time

Bitcoin is faster than dogecoin and litecoin because of the amount of nodes.

[Lauda]

I think those that are worried about 10 minute confirmations are mostly people that don't use Bitcoin very often. "10 minute confirmations!?! WTFOMG!! I won't wait that long at a fast food restaurant!"

transaction time != confirmation time

Bitcoin is faster than dogecoin and litecoin because of the amount of nodes.

That is correct. I've just recently used a website in which the transaction was almost instant. This is because they accept the transaction as soon as it gets relayed; no confirmations are needed.
They take some of the risk depending on what kind of services they provide.
A faster confirmation time would not hurt, if we do not make it too fast.

I fear this would have a lot of consequences. I'd rather we did this slowly, from 10 to 8, from 8 to 6 or 5, over the years.

This would be much harder too code. Either the developers try coding all of this in a single try or we would have to fork multiple times.
This is because a lot of things need to get adjusted for Bitcoin to have the same supply over time.

[inBitweTrust]

One minute confirmations are unacceptable. We need 1 second confirmations. Alts boasting of faster block confirmations is mainly marketing fluff as anyone knows that you can purchase items instantly with bitcoin by looking at the mempool and other variables.

Lets stop wasting our time on half measures and solutions and work on truly innovative solutions-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970822.0

[cryptoknight84]

I fear this would have a lot of consequences. I'd rather we did this slowly, from 10 to 8, from 8 to 6 or 5, over the years.

I agree, abrupt changes is not recommended.... This way we can asses the affects of the change.

[ebliever]

I fear this would have a lot of consequences. I'd rather we did this slowly, from 10 to 8, from 8 to 6 or 5, over the years.

I agree, abrupt changes is not recommended.... This way we can asses the affects of the change.

Agreed! That's why I voted to keep at 10 minutes. Changes should only be done (unless something is flat out broken) after a lengthy period of debate and discussion. And they should only be done to keep Bitcoin working well for its intended purpose. I want Bitcoin to be as fixed and immutable as possible. Otherwise we are just trading a bunch of central bankers manipulating the money supply for a bunch of miners manipulating the money supply, which is no improvement.

The discussion about 20 Mb. blocks is a case in point. People have been going at it hammers & tongs for a while now, but only a few days ago did I see Gavin acknowledge the 20 Mb. proposal probably brings with it a big problem with the UTXO database/memory requirements. That reinforces my desire to have everything thought out very slowly and carefully (while planning changes with enough lead time that we don't get ourselves in a bind.)

I have a lot of respect for Gavin and think he's doing a great job. But he's not infallible either.

[Snail2]

I miss the "No, it would cause high rate of inflation and fall of prices." option. Such an action would increase the coin output tenfold what would make even the current price unsustainable. Who would/could buy so many coins. It's only viable if the reward goes down to 2.1 BTC from 21 BTC.

[ebliever]

I miss the "No, it would cause high rate of inflation and fall in prices." option. Such an action would increase the coin output tenfold what would make even the current price unsustainable. Who would/could buy so many coins. It's only viable if the reward goes down to 2.1 BTC from 21 BTC.

In the discussion above it was proposed to change the block reward time at the next halving. The block reward would go from 12.5 BTC to 1.25 BTC. No change in coin supply. (I'd be dumping my coins ASAP if someone started jacking with the coin supply.)

[Cruxer]

Don't have enough knowledge to even put my vote in this matter. This change would affect how bitcoin work, people get used to 10 minutes confirmations.

[Lauda]

I miss the "No, it would cause high rate of inflation and fall in prices." option. Such an action would increase the coin output tenfold what would make even the current price unsustainable. Who would/could buy so many coins. It's only viable if the reward goes down to 2.1 BTC from 21 BTC.

In the discussion above it was proposed to change the block reward time at the next halving. The block reward would go from 12.5 BTC to 1.25 BTC. No change in coin supply. (I'd be dumping my coins ASAP if someone started jacking with the coin supply.)

This is what happens when one doesn't read any posts (even though there are only a few) and spams.

On reddit, Gavin has responded favorably to cryptodude1's proposal that Bitcoin's 10 minute block interval be reduced to 1 minute.
If it is done at the next block reward halving (about July 2016) the block reward would drop from 25 BTC to 1.25 BTC in order to maintain the 21 million BTC limit. Difficulty would be reduced by 10x.
-snip

Essentially nothing would be changed in regards to the supply.

One minute confirmations are unacceptable. We need 1 second confirmations. Alts boasting of faster block confirmations is mainly marketing fluff as anyone knows that you can purchase items instantly with bitcoin by looking at the mempool and other variables.

Lets stop wasting our time on half measures and solutions and work on truly innovative solutions-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970822.0

The real question is why the developers (or just Gavin) are focusing on changing the block size limit or block generation time instead of this?
From my quick look and basic understanding of what the proposed Network would be, I'm actually quite amazed. Hopefully we see something soon in regards to the Lightning Network.

[Elwar]

The real question is why the developers (or just Gavin) are focusing on changing the block size limit or block generation time instead of this?
From my quick look and basic understanding of what the proposed Network would be, I'm actually quite amazed. Hopefully we see something soon in regards to this.

Gavin has put a date of March 2016 to upgrade the block size to 20Mb.

[inBitweTrust]

The real question is why the developers (or just Gavin) are focusing on changing the block size limit or block generation time instead of this?

I am actually somewhat surprised Gavin has made that suggestion as increasing the probabilities of an orphaned block will encourage miners to propagate empty blocks for a slight block reward edge undermining his efforts to increase tps. Another concern is it will encourage centralization in pools to reduce orphans.

 Perhaps he was just giving a nod without thinking about the implications in depth as he really isn't too interested in mining as he has admitted multiple times..  

[Havelivi]

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.

[Klestin]

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?

[shorena]

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 ), come back and finish the trade.

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

[fryarminer]

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!

[LiteCoinGuy]

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