Halve the block generation interval now!

[Jet Cash]

Never mind the rubbish about blocksize. I've just been looking at blockchain.info and the block at height 404043 took 31 minutes to find. In the last 2 hours only 6 blocks have been relayed. With time intervals like this, Bitcoin has got no chance of mainstream adoption in the modern electronic age.

I assume that blockchain.info is reporting acurately.

[Risackwpsp]

yes, the transaction is real slow. the size of the block should be increased ASAP

[Jet Cash]

yes, the transaction is real slow. the size of the block should be increased ASAP

Did you read my post? I'm not talking about transactions, I'm talking about blocks. Increasing the block size will just make matters worse, and probably create more orphan blocks.

[GermanGiant]

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

[Jet Cash]

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues.

Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations.

[pawel7777]

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Bit of exaggeration, but yes, in general shorter block times are considered less secure. But, as proved by multiple altcoins, it can work quite well. There's nothing magical about "10 minutes" (afaik).

@OP - some old discussion which you might find useful: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232297.msg2446457#msg2446457

[Amph]

halving the block time will reuslt in more orphan, we already have a % of orphan so thi is not recommended

there is a coming improvement to this known as a subchain(not to be confused with sidechain)

[Jet Cash]

First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often.

Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699

It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval?

[pedrog]

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues.

Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations.

You need to change a lot of rules for that, fundamental rules, mess with difficulty, immediately halve the reward and then set up the new mining reward rules, also new debates how big the block size should be, keep 1 MB or also halve the block size, it's a huge can of worms...

It's better just use litecoin.

[tertius993]

This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.

Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues.

Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations.

That is not how it works. If over a period of 2016 blocks the average block time is more than 10 minutes then the difficulty will be adjusted to bring the average back to 10 minutes.  The protocol does not think "oh, those 6 blocks were a bit slow, we'd better speed up for a few hours" instead it adjusts in quite long periods. Natural variation means that some blocks will be slower and some will be shorter - adjusting difficulty every 2016 blocks means that a lot of that variability is ironed out naturally.

Even if you changed to 5 minute blocks you would still get variability and some blocks would still be more than 10 minutes - what would you want to do then?

[Jet Cash]

That is not how it works. If over a period of 2016 blocks the average block time is more than 10 minutes then the difficulty will be adjusted to bring the average back to 10 minutes.  The protocol does not think "oh, those 6 blocks were a bit slow, we'd better speed up for a few hours" instead it adjusts in quite long periods. Natural variation means that some blocks will be slower and some will be shorter - adjusting difficulty every 2016 blocks means that a lot of that variability is ironed out naturally.

Even if you changed to 5 minute blocks you would still get variability and some blocks would still be more than 10 minutes - what would you want to do then?

I understand all that. My point was that the current difficulty is set to generate blocks at an average of 10 minute intervals. Because it is an average, some 10 minute "slots" will be barren, and some will have more than one block relayed. I think I saw one interval that had 4 blocks generated within the 10 minutes. My point was that if the current system can cope with a 2.5 minute generation interval as part of its normal operation, then a change to a 5 minute interval can't be as difficult as some people suggest.

[tertius993]

Then you will also understand that "occasionally" having 5 minute blocks is much different from "always" having 5 minute blocks (on average of course).

Rather than just saying "change this, it'll be OK" why don't you:

A) analyse the current orphans and cross-reference to the actual block generation times at the point the orphan occurred and

B) show how you will maintain security given a 5 minute block interval (where security is based on the principle of proof of work)

[Jet Cash]

I was rather hoping that someone who is more knowledgeable than me could prove or dispove my comment. It seems that there has been a lot of discussion about block intervals over the years, and there are quite a few people supporting the concept.

I'm looking at it from a commercial point of view. An average of 20 minute for 1 confirmation of a transaction is too long in the 21st Century. At some time it will have to be reduced or Bitcoin will never get out of the playground.

[tertius993]

I was rather hoping that someone who is more knowledgeable than me could prove or dispove my comment. It seems that there has been a lot of discussion about block intervals over the years, and there are quite a few people supporting the concept.

I'm looking at it from a commercial point of view. An average of 20 minute for 1 confirmation of a transaction is too long in the 21st Century. At some time it will have to be reduced or Bitcoin will never get out of the playground.

First why do you say the average is now 20 minutes? Average block time is 10 minutes, and since you won't normally submit a transaction immediately after a block is solved, your average "wait" time for a confirm should be more like 5 minutes.

Secondly if the block time is "really" a commercial issue then why isn't Litecoin with 5 minute blocks the coin of choice for commercial users?  There is a solution right there, ready to be used.

[Jet Cash]

Have you ever heard about zero confirmation? Some merchants accept zero confirmation for near-instant transaction.
Many people say zero confirmation is risky, but as long as users put recommended/default tx fee & it's not big transaction, you don't need to wait.

Well that answers the previous post. 20 minutes is the time to get one confirmation. ie. 2 blocks.

0 confirmation is fine for faucet earnings, but if I'm buying 5 Bitcoins for cash in McDonalds car park, I would prefer to wait for a couple of confirmations at least. The same applies if I am accepting Bitcoin for the sale of a car.

[alyssa85]

First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often.

Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699

It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval?

You mean copy alts like Doge and ETH? 

[jak1]

First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often.

Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699

It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval?

You mean copy alts like Doge and ETH? 

No it does not mean Copy Doge or ETH. It only means that block size should be reduced to reduce the time
between transaction. Most of the people waiting for halving and thinking it will solve the matter, but i don't think so.

[Jet Cash]

Let me clarify one thing. I believe in Bitcoin, and I think it will become the Gold standard of Crypto-currencies. To get there, it need an image enhancement, and to get out of the playground where people throw their toys out if they can't get their way, It also needs faster transaction confirmations and a planned scalability. Putting all your chips on a 2Mb dice roll, isn't the way forward. There are a lot of blocksize options that have been suggested - reduce it, increase it by factors between 1.5 and 64. Make it variable dependant on the transaction pool, vary it based on the hash rate. My belief is that a 512k size is optimum, but that will need to be coupled with a number of other changes. I'm happy to change my opinion if somebody can come up with some reasoned logic. Just telling me that I know nothing, and should keep quiet, just makes me think I am right and the person criticising me knows less than I do.

[tertius993]

Have you ever heard about zero confirmation? Some merchants accept zero confirmation for near-instant transaction.
Many people say zero confirmation is risky, but as long as users put recommended/default tx fee & it's not big transaction, you don't need to wait.

Well that answers the previous post. 20 minutes is the time to get one confirmation. ie. 2 blocks.

0 confirmation is fine for faucet earnings, but if I'm buying 5 Bitcoins for cash in McDonalds car park, I would prefer to wait for a couple of confirmations at least. The same applies if I am accepting Bitcoin for the sale of a car.

Why do you keep saying 20 minutes? If your transaction gets into the next block then it's the time between broadcasting the transaction and the next block being found - on average that should be about 5 minutes (assuming 10 minute average between blocks).

[DannyHamilton]

Well that answers the previous post. 20 minutes is the time to get one confirmation. ie. 2 blocks.

I think you're having a bit of trouble with the math.

0 confirmations = 0 blocks = instant
1 confirmation = 1 block = 10 minute average
2 confirmations = 2 blocks = 20 minutes average

0 confirmation is fine for faucet earnings, but if I'm buying 5 Bitcoins for cash in McDonalds car park, I would prefer to wait for a couple of confirmations at least. The same applies if I am accepting Bitcoin for the sale of a car.

If you are buying 5 BTC or a car, then you can wait 10 minutes for the confirmation if you are worried about it (or use a trusted service such as Coinbase that allows immediate transfer of funds off-chain).

An average of 20 minute for 1 confirmation of a transaction is too long in the 21st Century. At some time it will have to be reduced or Bitcoin will never get out of the playground.

The average is only 10 minutes (not 20 minutes) for 1 confirmation.  The majority of confirmations occur in less than 8 minutes.

My point was that if the current system can cope with a 2.5 minute generation interval as part of its normal operation, then a change to a 5 minute interval can't be as difficult as some people suggest.

With a 10 minute average time between blocks, some blocks will take much longer, and many blocks (more than 50%) will take less than 10 minutes.  There will even occasionally be blocks that occur at nearly the exact same time (which results in an orphan block).

With a 5 minute averagetime between blocks, some blocks will still take much longer, and many blocks (more than 50%) will take less than 5 minutes.  There will be almost twice as many blocks that occur at nearly the exact same time (which results in almost double the number of orphan blocks).

So, you haven't solved the problem of long periods occasionally occurring between blocks at all, but you have increased the number of orphan blocks significantly.  Are you saying that there are times when someone would be happy to wait nearly 5 minutes for a confirmation, but that nearly 10 minutes would be so much longer that it would change their mind?