Bitcoin Forum
January 18, 2018, 10:22:30 AM *
News: Electrum users must upgrade to 3.0.5 if they haven't already. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Faster blocks as an alternative to big blocks?  (Read 842 times)
charona
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13

To the largest moon of Pluto, Charon


View Profile
November 04, 2017, 08:49:53 AM
 #1

Just wondering: As an alternative to a big block HF, could we also do a HF which mines 12 blcoks/hr and halves the reward?

I don't assume I'm the first one to think of this. So why doesn't this seem to be an option? An obvious advantage would be that confirmations would be faster. So I must be missing a big disadvantage...

----
To the largest moon of Pluto, Charon.
1516270950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516270950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516270950
Reply with quote  #2

1516270950
Report to moderator
1516270950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516270950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516270950
Reply with quote  #2

1516270950
Report to moderator
1516270950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516270950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516270950
Reply with quote  #2

1516270950
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1516270950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516270950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516270950
Reply with quote  #2

1516270950
Report to moderator
1516270950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516270950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516270950
Reply with quote  #2

1516270950
Report to moderator
1516270950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516270950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516270950
Reply with quote  #2

1516270950
Report to moderator
Emoclaw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
November 04, 2017, 10:22:21 AM
 #2

Firstly, it would still require twice as much the bandwidth & storage just like 2MB blocks would do, so it wouldn't be any better.
But the real reason why we have a 10 minute block time is explained here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Help:FAQ#Why_do_I_have_to_wait_10_minutes_before_I_can_spend_money_I_received.3F

Quote
Ten minutes was specifically chosen by Satoshi as a tradeoff between first confirmation time and the amount of work wasted due to chain splits. After a block is mined, it takes time for other miners to find out about it, and until then they are actually competing against the new block instead of adding to it. If someone mines another new block based on the old block chain, the network can only accept one of the two, and all the work that went into the other block gets wasted. For example, if it takes miners 1 minute on average to learn about new blocks, and new blocks come every 10 minutes, then the overall network is wasting about 10% of its work. Lengthening the time between blocks reduces this waste.

The more hashing power is wasted, the less secure Bitcoin is.
Xavofat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742

Satoshi wanted "small, casual transactions".


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2017, 12:35:04 PM
 #3

More of the hash power is wasted when using shorter block times, which can decrease the security.  It can also result in re-org taking significantly longer after a fork occurs.  There's also the fact that the shorter block time which could be practical (say 2.5 to 5 minutes) isn't actually short enough for what you're talking about anyway (which is most likely going into a shop and expecting it to be confirmed on the spot).

Increasing the speed of blocks is also a more complicated change and requires changing more variables, so it could leave room for error.

There is an advantage that I can think of - that miners can have less variance when mining on smaller pools, which in turn can reduce the risk of a "mining cartel" - but I don't think that it's worth it.
 


ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Use SegWit/LN and enjoy lower fees


View Profile
November 04, 2017, 02:46:25 PM
 #4

Shorter block time will lead to Orphan Block and i think it's worse than the idea of raising block size a lot. Also, it could complicate things such as halving reward in future and miner with slow internet connection/response time might at disadvantage.

If you too lazy to google, i'll give you link that might be useful :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260180.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1925353.0



              ▄▄              ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
             ████         ▄▄██████████████████
            ██████       █████████████████████
           ████████     ██████████████████████
          ██████████   ▐███████▀
         ████████████  ▐███████▄
        ██████████████  ████████████████████████▄
       ████████▀███████  ██████████████████████████
      ████████   ███████  ▀▀████████████████████████
     ████████     ███████                   ▀███████▌
    ████████       ███████                   ███████▌
   ████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  ███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████
  █████████████████  ██████████████████████████████
 ███████████████████  ███████████████████████████▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

█ █
█ █
█ █

█ █
█ █
█ █




                 ▄████▄▄    ▄
██             ████████████▀
████▄         █████████████▀
▀████████▄▄   █████████████
▄▄█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
  ▀██████████████████████
   █████████████████████
    ▀█████████████████▀
      ▄█████████████▀
▄▄███████████████▀
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀





    ███▄             ▄███
   ██████▄█████████▄██████
   ███████████████████████
  █████████████████████████
 ███████████████████████████
 █████▀▀             ▀▀█████
▐████   ▄██▄     ▄██▄   ████▌
 ███▌   ████     ████   ▐███
  ▀██▄   ▀▀       ▀▀   ▄██▀
    ▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀
       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀





                      ▄▄████
                ▄▄▄████████▌
          ▄▄▄███████▀▄█████
     ▄▄█████████▀▀ ▄██████▌
▄▄███████████▀  ▄█████████
 ▀▀▀█████▀    ▄██████████▌
       ██   █████████████
        █▄ █████████████▌
        ▐█▄███▀▀████████
         ███▀    ▀▀████▌
                    ▀▀█





▄                ▄▄
████▄▄          ██████▄▄
████████▌     ▄███████████
████████▌█   ████████████▄
████████▌██▄▀██████████▀▄█
████████▌████▀████████ ███
████████▌█████▄█████▀▄████
████████▌ ▀▀███▄▀██▀██████
████████▌      ▀▀  ███████
  ▀█████▌          ▀▀█████
      ▀▀▌              ▀▀█
neurotypical
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
November 04, 2017, 07:01:40 PM
 #5

I put the idea of changing the 10 minute block time at the same level as attempting to change the 21 million coin total supply limit.

It will never gather enough support. If it is hard to find consensus in changing the block size, imagine these other terms.

It would also not solve anything. Checking on the blockchain more often would create more problems if anything.
YelloAme
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 48

GeoPin: Blockchain interface to the physical world


View Profile WWW
November 05, 2017, 11:46:08 AM
 #6

Apart from all the concerns raised, faster blocks would result in a centralization risk. The more blocks you propogate, the larger the blockchain becomes. Miners will access to huge storage, can only run a full node. 10minute block times helps to slow such centralization risk.

Jet Cash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770



View Profile WWW
November 06, 2017, 09:38:34 AM
 #7

Internet speeds have increased, storage costs have gone down, hash power has increased dramatically, all this has happened since Bitcoin started. Halving the block generation time, and reducing block size would still leave us ahead based on the improved efficiency. The other big change is the centralisation of mining, and my gut feeling is that faster blocks could re-introduce more miners. I don't have enough knowledge to justify this.

Massive amounts of hash power are wasted all the time. I don't see how faster block generation and speeding up transaction confirmations will affect this. other than making the system more efficient.

Are you still posting in the Frog Pond? Visit the board without the sig smoke clouds
Click here for serious discussions about crypto and Bitcoin
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
November 07, 2017, 03:15:56 AM
 #8

During 2013..2015, the times different scaling proposals were analyzed, I proposed reducing the block time to 1 minute. I did some research that ended with the DECOR+ PoW consensus algorithm as an alternative to Nakamoto Consensus.

Some more info here: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/decor/

The DECOR+ protocol is what powers the RSK Bitcoin Sidechain (check rsk.co).

There has been a lot more research about this since 2014. My current understanding is that shorter block intervals down to 1 minute for Bitcoin are ok because block propagation has improved (however the blocks would need to be 1/10th of the current size). For even shorter intervals, more cooperative consensus protocols are required to prevent the generation of stale blocks to be a significant disadvantage.
 
mpet5000
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
November 07, 2017, 12:20:01 PM
 #9

This would actually require a large amount of bandwith and is a potentially bigger blockchain size obviously, but that's not really a big problem unless you are doing VISA level transaction volume
charona
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13

To the largest moon of Pluto, Charon


View Profile
December 12, 2017, 05:11:41 PM
 #10

Thanks so much for all the answers guys!

----
To the largest moon of Pluto, Charon.
pjmis
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47


View Profile
December 12, 2017, 05:22:12 PM
 #11

From my prospective we have a few choices here, we increase the block size of BTC. Might work, but than we face other issues.  

Or implement lighting speed transactions for smaller amounts, etc. Amazon transactions or going to a store. Which would be a smaller amount of fees, which is being done. The solution to our problem.

If we do faster blocks, we face a lot more issues compared to increasing the block size.
shensu
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70

Vires in Numeris


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2017, 01:57:29 AM
 #12

Side-chain style approaches like lightning network are probably the way to go. Ethereum 2.0 is moving that direction.
ir.hn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84

Blockchain: A Digital Declaration of Independence


View Profile
December 13, 2017, 05:09:51 AM
 #13

Just wondering: As an alternative to a big block HF, could we also do a HF which mines 12 blcoks/hr and halves the reward?

I don't assume I'm the first one to think of this. So why doesn't this seem to be an option? An obvious advantage would be that confirmations would be faster. So I must be missing a big disadvantage...

A block of a given size takes a given amount of time to traverse the network so everyone can get started mining it.  With 1 mb blocks it takes 12s.  This means that the shorter the blocktime the bigger percentage of "head start" nearby miners get than farther away miners.  You can shrink the block size or increase the blocktime to even the playing field between everyone on the network.

FYI to get it so that everyone has a 99% even playing field for every block you need to have 12KB max blocksize and 7 min blocktime.  So ya bitcoin actually isn't slow enough to be fair.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!