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

[chaoman]

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.

[thejaytiesto]

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.

[ChuckBuck]

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.

[satashito]

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

[jonald_fyookball]

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

[tvbcof]

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.

[fox19891989]

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.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

[Elwar]

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

[Klestin]

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

[R2D221]

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.

[Troonetpt]

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.

[pawel7777]

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?

[Klestin]

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.

[shorena]

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.

I think thats very likely as well. Bitstamp requires 6 confirmations IIRC, mainly because they allow you to trade directly with other users. The other user might want to withdraw instantly, thus bitstamp has to make as sure as they can that they actually received the coins. With 6 confirmations a blockchain reorg is very unlikely. Should the time between blocks be lowered along with the difficulty, they would probably require 60 confirmations and the "speed-up" is minimal as you would only profit from the lower variance.

I also dont understand why people are so demanding when it comes to confirmation times. Considering the alternatives in any situation Bitcoin is extremely fast. I doubt any stock broker allows live trades via their system 60 minutes after you created a wire transfer.

[ArticMine]

Dealing with the 1 MB blocksize limit is far more important than this so I voted no.

[Coinshot]

Most of the merchants now accept zero confirm transactions. Wherever there is the issue of security they will insist on more confirms if the block time is 1 min. So there is no need to do this.

[JarvisTechnology]

Dealing with the 1 MB blocksize limit is far more important than this so I voted no.

What is the procedure when we hit 1MB? We've been very close to hitting it on some blocks.

[ArticMine]

Dealing with the 1 MB blocksize limit is far more important than this so I voted no.

What is the procedure when we hit 1MB? We've been very close to hitting it on some blocks.

Transactions that do not fit in the 1MB block simply do not get confirmed period. Of course this will cause transaction fees to skyrocket as there would be an ever increasing demand with a fixed supply. My take is that free market will solve this problem by moving away from Bitcoin.