Why Didn't Satoshi Think About Instant Confirmations?

[SmartIphone]

I read somewhere(cant remember now) that Crypto 2.0 has instant transactions like stellar, ripple that's why bitcoin should be updated to 2.0

Stellar had a flawed consensus protocol that led to a fork. It was temporarily resolved by running the whole Stellar network on a single verifying node, which is not decentralized. Stellar and Ripple have not been tested as long as Bitcoin and can only prove they are as reliable by running for years without problems.

http://www.coindesk.com/stability-questions-dog-ripple-protocol-stellar-fork/

Can bitcoin be updated like stellar and ripple (stellar it's like ripple as it use almost all things that ripple use)

[thrax]

I read somewhere(cant remember now) that Crypto 2.0 has instant transactions like stellar, ripple that's why bitcoin should be updated to 2.0

Stellar had a flawed consensus protocol that led to a fork. It was temporarily resolved by running the whole Stellar network on a single verifying node, which is not decentralized. Stellar and Ripple have not been tested as long as Bitcoin and can only prove they are as reliable by running for years without problems.

http://www.coindesk.com/stability-questions-dog-ripple-protocol-stellar-fork/

Can bitcoin be updated like stellar and ripple (stellar it's like ripple as it use almost all things that ripple use)

It would no longer be decentralized if it was updated to be like Stellar. I think a single verifying node is still running the whole Stellar network because of the fork. A government could switch off the server hosting that node and close the whole Stellar network. It's impossible to do that to the Bitcoin network, which is why it was invented.

A new consensus protocol has been devised for Stellar but I don't think its been deployed yet. This link explains it and says the earliest it will be deployed is this summer.

http://www.coindesk.com/stellar-founder-jed-mccaleb-new-protocol/

[SmartIphone]

I read somewhere(cant remember now) that Crypto 2.0 has instant transactions like stellar, ripple that's why bitcoin should be updated to 2.0

Stellar had a flawed consensus protocol that led to a fork. It was temporarily resolved by running the whole Stellar network on a single verifying node, which is not decentralized. Stellar and Ripple have not been tested as long as Bitcoin and can only prove they are as reliable by running for years without problems.

http://www.coindesk.com/stability-questions-dog-ripple-protocol-stellar-fork/

Can bitcoin be updated like stellar and ripple (stellar it's like ripple as it use almost all things that ripple use)

It would no longer be decentralized if it was updated to be like Stellar. I think a single verifying node is still running the whole Stellar network because of the fork. A government could switch off the server hosting that node and close the whole Stellar network. It's impossible to do that to the Bitcoin network, which is why it was invented.

A new consensus protocol has been devised for Stellar but I don't think its been deployed yet. This link explains it and says the earliest it will be deployed is this summer.

http://www.coindesk.com/stellar-founder-jed-mccaleb-new-protocol/

Well i'm learning more day by day, didnt know about this how works stellar. Btw, i like bitcoin and maybe that reason you gave thats why it is so popular right now and will be more in near future.

[ticoti]

Transactions are instant,but not confirmed instantly, you can't make instant confirmations without making it unsecure

[Kprawn]

It's really a non-issue for me. There are loads of 3rd party services you can use that implemented "off-chain" instants transactions.

Let's keep in mind, that Satoshi's protocol was still a work in progress and acctually still is... This can still be solved now.

Let's give him/her/them credit for all the other bases that was covered.... It's simply brilliant, and shows that no technology is perfect. 

[ShetKid]

What is the need for instant confirmations ? Once a transaction is sent doesn't it get confirmed after sometime, so how does it matter ? We just have to wait for one confirmation while trading to avoid double spends. In rest of the cases its hardly a worry.

[muhrohmat]

well the bitcoin architecutre depends on the more miners of diff find blocks and never could be instant the bolckchain need to find and store the perfect transactions of the last 10 mins but usualy 3 confirms do that and 30 mins a transaction its very much better than 2 days banks btc its a bank for itself

[H.W.Z]

When someone of his skills and imagination is on his path to create a decentralized digital currency, how is the transaction times are not given the most important thought process?

He imagined instant transactions and all will be confirmed after 10 minutes on average. That is a fairly quick system. I know sometimes we can't even get 1 confirmation in an hour, that's to do with luck and difficulty mechanism.

How quickly your transactions get confimed, it depends on how much of your paid fees. The more fee you pay, the more priority of your transactions!

[Amph]

satoshi said specifically that faster confirmations are not needed because even in the case that a remote attack could be done with fewer confirmations, or with zero confirmation the thing that matter is node propagation

basically if the attacker has not enough nodes to propagate his attack, his attack would be useless

[hua_hui]

satoshi said specifically that faster confirmation are not needed because even in the case that a remote attack could be done with fewer confirmations, or with zero confirmation the thing that matter is node propagation

basically if the attacker has not enough nodes to propagate his attack, his attack would be useless

It is a precautious meature! Satoshi probably haven't thought the 51% attack issues, which haven't been completely resolved yet! It just relies on the big mining farms' self discipline.

[sgk]

Transactions are instant, are you referring to confirmation?

I have done a lot of transactions all happens in usually 1-2 seconds or less.

Yes of course I was referring to instant 'confirmations'. Even one instant confirmation will be very helpful in order to process some of the daily payments in retail stores etc. against the 10 minutes block time we currently have. There could have been a system where teh first confirmation took just seconds, and then more confirmations would follow in next blocks. This would have been very helpful for small payments.

Probably there could have been a way for him to think of shorter block times. Or probably he thought 10 minutes was good enough compared to traditional money transfer systems.

[pooya87]

I believe companies like coinbase make their transactions "off blockchain" so they happen instantly, then push all transactions out afterwards.  someone correct me if i'm wrong

as far as i know wallets like coinbase that are working off the chain have instant transaction / confirmation as long as both recipient and sender have that wallet. and the issue that OP talks about still exist if one of them does not have that wallet (has other wallet than coinbase for example).

but this has nothing to do with bitcoin. it is like using a bank. you don't actually send the money (physically) you send a bunch of numbers and they receive those numbers and it adds to their balance.

[okae]

The problem is that confirmations cant be instant, thats basic, it need some times to the network to confirm it, i think he mean that satoshis should think on a faster way.

btw we can always think on a better/faster way to made it yes?

[herzmeister]

I read somewhere(cant remember now) that Crypto 2.0 has instant transactions like stellar, ripple that's why bitcoin should be updated to 2.0

ripple and stellar work differently. they don't have a blockchain, their design works more like a state machine tracking and updating the amounts in each user account. though they're not technically as centralized as other posters here suggest, these instant transactions come at the cost of privacy. creating more than one account per user is discouraged (because it costs XRPs). you can't create a new address for each transaction. so you'll mostly have only one account with everything in it. further, guess what's happening? latest news is KYC and AML is being enforced on ripple by the authorities. just because it's technically possible. so no surprise there, really.

[ShetKid]

The problem is that confirmations cant be instant, thats basic, it need some times to the network to confirm it, i think he mean that satoshis should think on a faster way.

btw we can always think on a better/faster way to made it yes?

SInce there exists payments systems like Ripple, there wasn't anything that would stop it from being confirmed immediately. It definitely could have been implemented.

[knowhow]

well if those really goes forward we would see bitcoin on several more places then it is currently pay a coffe a dinner a pizza like with cards would be amazing

[Lauda]

well if those really goes forward we would see bitcoin on several more places then it is currently pay a coffe a dinner a pizza like with cards would be amazing

Please read the replies before writing. This is a common misconception with Bitcoin.
Transactions are almost instant (usually 2-3 seconds at most), it is the confirmations that are taking time. For example Starbucks could easily accept transactions with zero confirmations as their risk would be only a few dollars usually.

It is a precautious meature! Satoshi probably haven't thought the 51% attack issues, which haven't been completely resolved yet! It just relies on the big mining farms' self discipline.

Wrong. He actually mentioned it in the original paper. Maybe the term 51% attack was used later.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth

Section 6: Incentive, last paragraph.
He actually even talked about it in 2008.

[satnof]

Bitcoin is instant. However if you accept transactions without confirmations by miners, you would be taking the burden of proof on yourself and that's the problem with Bitcoin malleability. Think mt.Gox

Cheers

[jonald_fyookball]

The problem is that confirmations cant be instant, thats basic, it need some times to the network to confirm it, i think he mean that satoshis should think on a faster way.

btw we can always think on a better/faster way to made it yes?

you can cross check against double spends with zero confirmations by querying the mempool of a few random nodes.

[Kakmakr]

Some of the gambling sites I use allow for 1 confirmation to except the transaction or deposit. So for me it is not such a big issue. I will agree with you that it would become a problem if I had to pay for a cup of Java and by the time the confirmation comes through the coffee will be cold. On smaller transactions this might become a bigger problem.