Would faster block creation give lower security?

[Xenland]

Broadcast it

100% chance you win the block (payout 1X)

Average: 100% of 1X = 1X

might be more accurate to say 99% (with networking latency propagation and all) but i got your point though

[1715000026]

1715000026

[1715000026]

1715000026

[amincd]

That all does sound inline with my knowledge as well but I think the conclusion in the debate as i remember it ended something like "its more profitable to mine the bitcoin blocks than it is to attempt a 51% attack as most retailers, casinos, and other big businesses won't allow you to run off with something until all 6 confirmations are confirmed which would be about the worth if not more than the hiest and if it isn't then that business is just ignorant and stupid for not waiting for all 6+ confirmations.

I think I've read through most of the threads on the subject of reducing the block target time and most of them conclude that zero-confirmation transactions are the preferable way to do most in-person point of sale transactions, and that for most online transactions, waiting 1-6 confirmations is not a hindrance to commerce, as it takes at least one hour to ship a good any way.

What's been neglected is the minority case of online payments where a physical good is not shipped, like online casinos, or depositing bitcoin at an exchange. Any online wallet that accepts bitcoin deposits that can later be withdrawn will need to wait at least one confirmation before crediting the bitcoin to an account or else a double spend attack becomes extremely attractive for attackers and dangerous for the wallet operator.

Faster confirmations (e.g. 1 minute) would mean commerce would be much faster in these use-cases, like allowing deposits at exchanges to be registered in 6 minutes (or if the business wants to especially careful, 10 minutes). This would create a bitcoin economy that reacts more quickly to changes in demand, which I think would help reduce volatility by dampening the magnitude of bubbles, since potential sellers could move their bitcoin to exchanges and sell them more quickly when they see an unsustainable price increase.

These statistics are in a network latency-free statistics environment. Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations would need to be performed to find where propagation times on fast-confirmation (or huge block size) networks detectably increase the number of blocks required for the same resistance against blockchain reorganization.

Analysis definitely needs to be done, but I think it should be done in the event that bitcoin changes to a 1 minute block time. The next step I think is to see if there is significant support in the bitcoin community for exploring the option, and if so, creating a bitcoin testnet with 1 minute blocks and see how it behaves.

[Xenland]

To conclude if your doing transactions as a merchant face-to-face with zero confirmation times... your going to have a bad time

[wingding]

Is there possible in some way to do any network analysis that can tell how 'good' a zero confirm is, e.g. how many nodes that has time stamped it or something, so that one could develop a scal between 0 and first confirm?

[deepceleron]

Is there possible in some way to do any network analysis that can tell how 'good' a zero confirm is, e.g. how many nodes that has time stamped it or something, so that one could develop a scal between 0 and first confirm?

Satoshidice has done such analysis, looking at fees paid, etc, and you can see their conclusion - how zero confirmation transactions are no longer automatically paid for just about anything.

[tlr]

No, litecoin is basically the same as bitcoin except with a different mining algorithm and the average mining time adjusted to be 2.5 minutes instead of 10 minutes.

This is good and bad. The good part is that you don't have to wait as long for a confirmed transaction. The downside is that there will be 4 times as many blocks, so a much larger blockchain plus there is a greater risk of mining blocks at the same time so mining is more difficult.

There would be 4 times as many blocks, but if those blocks are 1/4 the size then the blockchain wouldn't be much larger (except for the overhead of the block headers)

I thought the bigger issue was it takes a certain amount of time for new blocks to flood the entire network, so a shorter target time would result in more side chains, wasting mining capacity, and requiring you wait for a higher number of confirmations for the same confidence, partially negating any benefits of shorter mining times?

[amincd]

To conclude if your doing transactions as a merchant face-to-face with zero confirmation times... your going to have a bad time

I think in face-to-face transaction situations, it's pretty safe. If it's not, then a 1 minute block time would be a bigger advantage.

It essentially gives higher resolution security, providing the all important first confirmation sooner.