Bitcoin Block time

[konfuzius5278]

I am really wondering about BTC Block Time.

This morning only 6 Block found in 2 hours. Of course it depends on luck. But it depends also an HASH Rate. This is so enormous high and only adaped every 2 weeks.

Why does the biggest coin does not solve this difficulty problem? And why still more and more miners start so that the difficulty rises without watching the price.

[nc50lc]

It's not like that.
Bitcoin mining is designed to adapt to the total hashrate of the miners based on the previous block.
The difficulty will always change to maintain the average of 10 minutes per block. "Average" means that sometimes, it doesn't guarantee that the difficulty can accurately "harden" the block discovery.
So sometimes, a new block was discovered in less than 2minutes, sometimes, it can take 30 minutes to mine a block.

[konfuzius5278]

Ok, but when there are "waves" of hash rate in the two weeks, the coin can not adapt.

Depending on BTC.com the difficulty will rise about 3 % in 6 days, but as I said at the moment 5 to 6 Blocks in 2 hours....

[mocacinno]

Ok, but when there are "waves" of hash rate in the two weeks, the coin can not adapt.

Depending on BTC.com the difficulty will rise about 3 % in 6 days, but as I said at the moment 5 to 6 Blocks in 2 hours....

The network behaves as it was initially designed. Every 2016 blocks there is a retarget, the difficulty gets adjusted upwards or downwards so the AVERAGE time between two blocks is ~10 minutes.
You are correct tough, if the networks hashrate would drop to 50% in the first 10 minutes after a retarget, it would take about 4 weeks untill the next retarget, at which point the time between two blocks would once again be ~10 minutes. This is still "working as designed" tough, theoretically, there is no problem... Sure, blocks would probably be completely full for the next 4 weeks, a fee war could start, it would take a longer time to get a confirmation,.... But everything would sort itself out, without technical problems.

The fact that at this moment, the time between the last 6 blocks was ~20 minutes (i didn't verify this): no problem, it's completely possible... That's why the difficulty is adjusted so the AVERAGE time between two blocks is ~10minutes, and that's also why we don't retarget every 10 or 20 blocks (if we would retarget to often, the difficulty would jump up and down quite a bit, since the number of samples would be to low).

Solving a block requires the miners to increment a nonce in the block header, then create a sha256d hash of this new header and check if the result in under the current target. It's possible that after a miner receives a new block and start working on the next block, he finds a header whose sha256d hash is under the target in less than a second, it's also possible he'll never find a valid block...

[konfuzius5278]

Want to send some BTC, now over 1 hour no block found.

For payment in  just NOT to use

[ir.hn]

Lots of options for reducing the retargeting time, Even keeping the same difficulty protocol I think lowering it to 1 Day (360 blocks) would be plenty.  Reading old posts people were worried about crazy difficulty oscillations, but DarkGravityWave doesn't seem to have that and it retargets every block.

[konfuzius5278]

Lots of options for reducing the retargeting time, Even keeping the same difficulty protocol I think lowering it to 1 Day (360 blocks) would be plenty.  Reading old posts people were worried about crazy difficulty oscillations, but DarkGravityWave doesn't seem to have that and it retargets every block.

Yes difficulty must be addapted more fast.

And why not halven block time and reward ?

[HeRetiK]

I am really wondering about BTC Block Time.

This morning only 6 Block found in 2 hours. Of course it depends on luck. But it depends also an HASH Rate. This is so enormous high and only adaped every 2 weeks.

Why does the biggest coin does not solve this difficulty problem? And why still more and more miners start so that the difficulty rises without watching the price.

Variance happens, difficulty has little to do with. Reducing retarget times to timeframes of eg. 1-2 hours you'd lose most of the network's reliability, stability and security.

Case in point: When Bitcoin Cash hardforked last year, they started off with retargets every 144 blocks (= one day). The result was a clusterfuck of hashrate oscillation between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin. Sometimes Bitcoin Cash would have a block every minute, causing the retarget period to only last a couple of hours. Sometimes Bitcoin Cash would swing towards the other extreme and have only 1 block every couple hours, practically grinding to a halt for days. So in a way Bitcoin Cash was the first coin to introduce banking holidays to cryptocurrencies. Joking aside, the latter was incredibly annoying, especially since many exchanges had to up the minimum required confirmation count to 12-24 confirmations, due to the questionable security and stability of the Bitcoin Cash network.

In other words, there's a lot of side effects to keep in mind. One may argue that 2 weeks are too long a timeframe, but a certain margin of error is required as to avoid hashrate fluctuations. Then again reducing the timeframe to other conservative timeframes, like for example 1 week, you'd still have variance in block intervals like you experienced.

It is also worth noting that for the most part of Bitcoin's history it's been ahead of its block intervals anyway. As the network grows, block intervals are on average shorter each difficulty period as they should be. Hence difficulty increasing. Hashrate being added to the network actually reduces the block interval within each period. It's only that at the beginning of each difficulty period the network adjusts back up to a block interval of 10 minutes.

Why are there more miners entering the market? Well, likely there's still profits to be made if you're able to minimize costs at the right corners. Old mining hardware may be phased out and replaced by more efficient and powerful miners. Old mining hardware may be bought up and brought back online by newcomers who have no idea what they are doing.

[konfuzius5278]

But today again same problem I really hate that. I send a transaction with normal fee and now waiting at the computer for about 2 hours and it is still not confirmed.

Why all crypto people use this Bitcoin Bullshit for payment. Yes for payment in Crypto it is bullshit.  

And dont tell about Lightning, this is child foot age. And nearly same as Master Nodes.

[bob123]

I send a transaction with normal fee and now waiting at the computer for about 2 hours and it is still not confirmed.

This probably happened because you have picked a fee which was too low.
Usually 1 sat/B transactions get confirmed pretty fast, but the mempool started growing a bit today. This happens in cycles.
You can check the current status here: jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,8h.

How high was your transaction fee ?
If you really need it to be confirmed as fast as possible, you might bump the fee (assuming you have the RBF-tag set; depends on the wallet you are using).

Why all crypto people use this Bitcoin Bullshit for payment. Yes for payment in Crypto it is bullshit.  

Bitcoin is the most proven and secured payment system around.
Each other crypto is either a clone or some untested system which massive vulnerabilities.

And dont tell about Lightning, this is child foot age. And nearly same as Master Nodes.

The LN is completely different from master nodes. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the LN.
If you want to get a deep understanding you might read want this article (part1 , part2).

If you instead don't want to spend 15 minutes of your life, you might look at the wikipedia article instead.

Both sources should make it clear that the LN in not similar to the concept of master nodes.

[konfuzius5278]

So the fee was 6000 sat per kB. I think that is ok.

I tried to use Lightning network, all wallets even the offcial one I used were "not compaible" to the test I made (this picture you can paint for 1 sat per pixel)

What is the real difference. Some special nodes confirm the transaction faster like instant send in Dash?? Thats it, nothing really special 

[bob123]

So the fee was 6000 sat per kB. I think that is ok.

That's 6 sat/B. 10 would have been needed for an instant confirmation today. Can be seen here.

I tried to use Lightning network, all wallets even the offcial one I used were "not compaible" to the test I made (this picture you can paint for 1 sat per pixel)

The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.

What is the real difference. Some special nodes confirm the transaction faster like instant send in Dash?? Thats it, nothing really special 

No. Thats not how it works.
At least use 3 minutes of your precious time to check the link i have posted (to have at least a bit of knowledge regarding LN):

If you instead don't want to spend 15 minutes of your life, you might look at the wikipedia article instead.

[mocacinno]

--snip
The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.
--snip--

Not necessarily true.. Eclair has a pretty stable mainnet version for android which I've been using for several weeks without a hitch. Lnd and c-lightning can also be run on the mainnet without having to reconfigure them (although you need a synced node for both)

[bob123]

Eclair has a pretty stable mainnet version for android which I've been using for several weeks without a hitch. Lnd and c-lightning can also be run on the mainnet without having to reconfigure them

I was under the impression that most wallets were for 'testnet only'. And that you could configure them to run on mainnet, but it was recommended not to do so.
It may have been like that a few months ago. But unfortunately i don't remember, i could also be wrong.

[konfuzius5278]

So the fee was 6000 sat per kB. I think that is ok.

That's 6 sat/B. 10 would have been needed for an instant confirmation today. Can be seen here.

I tried to use Lightning network, all wallets even the offcial one I used were "not compaible" to the test I made (this picture you can paint for 1 sat per pixel)

The lightning network still is in beta.
And most of the wallets available currently do only work with the testnet (except if you make changes to the configuration, then it is possible to use them on the main net).
So if you didn't explicitly configure them to work on the mainnet, they were configured for the testnet.

What is the real difference. Some special nodes confirm the transaction faster like instant send in Dash?? Thats it, nothing really special 

No. Thats not how it works.
At least use 3 minutes of your precious time to check the link i have posted (to have at least a bit of knowledge regarding LN):

If you instead don't want to spend 15 minutes of your life, you might look at the wikipedia article instead.

So you tell something now in beta is the future of payment. Otherwise you say something about prooved and secure.

Bitcoin was the first crypto that is ok. But dont treat it all like al holy cow. There have been some optimising with fork and thats ok too.
And also a 51% attack of BTC is possible. 2 pools more then 50% of hash rate. Now it is not useful but think of the future

[r1s2g3]

The network behaves as it was initially designed. Every 2016 blocks there is a retarget, the difficulty gets adjusted upwards or downwards so the AVERAGE time between two blocks is ~10 minutes.
You are correct tough, if the networks hashrate would drop to 50% in the first 10 minutes after a retarget, it would take about 4 weeks untill the next retarget, at which point the time between two blocks would once again be ~10 minutes. This is still "working as designed" tough, theoretically, there is no problem... Sure, blocks would probably be completely full for the next 4 weeks, a fee war could start, it would take a longer time to get a confirmation,.... But everything would sort itself out, without technical problems.

The fact that at this moment, the time between the last 6 blocks was ~20 minutes (i didn't verify this): no problem, it's completely possible... That's why the difficulty is adjusted so the AVERAGE time between two blocks is ~10minutes, and that's also why we don't retarget every 10 or 20 blocks (if we would retarget to often, the difficulty would jump up and down quite a bit, since the number of samples would be to low).

Solving a block requires the miners to increment a nonce in the block header, then create a sha256d hash of this new header and check if the result in under the current target. It's possible that after a miner receives a new block and start working on the next block, he finds a header whose sha256d hash is under the target in less than a second, it's also possible he'll never find a valid block...

Thanks for clearing the misconception of 2 weeks. so it is exactly 2016 block (14 days *24 hours * 6 block in an hour).

@OP.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always  increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.

[bob123]

So you tell something now in beta is the future of payment.

Every thing has been in beta once. The LN is still in development stage. Did you expect the LN would be built within a few weeks ?

Otherwise you say something about prooved and secure.

This is right. The bitcoin blockchain is the most secured one.
Not a single attack on bitcoin could really damage its network.
And since it has the most hashrate (and the most 'work' being used to mine) it is the crypto which needs the highest 'investment' to get attacked.

And also a 51% attack of BTC is possible. 2 pools more then 50% of hash rate.

Everything is possible.
But both pools would effectively go bankrupt if they would decide to perform 51% attacks.
They would be left with worthless hardware and coins without any value anymore.

These pools actually are the most ambicious one letting bitcoin NOT get attacked. Thats how they make their money.

[gmaxwell]

@OP.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always  increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.

This simply isn't true, hashrate (thus difficulty) has decreased many times in the past.

[r1s2g3]

@OP.
Few days back I checked the hash rate graph and I found that difficulty always  increased with each passing month and it never dipped so I do not think that we ever encountered any such situation where re target might happened after more than 2 weeks.

This simply isn't true, hashrate (thus difficulty) has decreased many times in the past.

I know, I was quoting the general trend , even if it dipped it made up for the dip.


I understand , my comment "it never dipped" was wrong , but in my mind I was seeing a linear line that is going up almost every month.

[konfuzius5278]

It is a measure of how long it will take the hashing power of the network to find a solution to the block hash. The difficulty is calculated proportionally to the hashing power so that, on average, the block time is 10 minutes for Bitcoin. In reality, block times can vary. It is different for each Cryptocurrency.

Mmmmh thats nothing new. My problem is when the core client suggest a fee I use it. And when I use the fee for 20 min and it takes 3 hours with twice double the fee, it is lets say difficult for payment

By the way one of my post was deleted. So as I said crypto community should not see BTC as the holy cow.