I have read* a comprehensive analysis of this issue 2-3 years ago, when BIP 151 and other network layer enhancements were not around and authors have thoroughly proved that with very minor enhancements (like adding compact block transmission which is already done) we would have no security issue with reducing block time substantially.
I read the paper a bit and i can't disagree, but there should be up-to-date research about this case since there's few protocol changes/client optimization, especially because people stuck with shorter block time is bad thing.
P.S i might have different opinion after read the paper thoroughly
I bet you would
I strongly believe with even further improvements in bitcoin networking services we can reach to a rough 1 minute block time without any security draw back.
As i mentioned on other thread, that would mess with coin production rate (even though it can be solved easily), timelock script which rely on block height and any 2nd layer which use it.
It would be a trivial job to tackle those issues, timeLock script codes are to be treated properly and would be obsolete and replaced with new opcode and block reward would be reduced respectively.
Besides, that would mean we might need more than 6 confirmation to reach same security with current block time.
I doubt it. The same hashpower is actively defending against any adversary. Nothing would change in terms of confirmations needed to secure a transaction, imo.
At the time of this writing we have less than %0.02 orphan blocks rate (only 11 blocks in last 12 months).
It is TOO low: an orphan block rate up to 1% is still to be considered secure! It proves a point: We are keeping bitcoin Too secure!
It is always true, set block time to 1 hour and you will get better security, but it is not what an engineer or a prominent developer do, you have always to trade-off and check what you are gaining for the utilities you are losing. In the block time case we can improve it right now without any considerable increase in orphan rate.
And the difficult problem is each people have different measure of acceptable orphan rate.
Don't agree. It is not an ideological issue. I have made some assessments regarding this issue and my results show that with a stale(orphan) block rate of less than 1% you need practically the same adversarial hashpower to commit a double spend attack on bitcoin (preserving the same 6 confirmations threshold de-facto standard) that you need with current %0.02 rate and I suggest reducing blocktime to 1 minute won't increase orphan rate even close to 0.5%.
It is very important to remember that we have now bip 151 active along with compact blocks, unsolicited block push , ... which are huge improvements that made it possible to have orphan rate dropped form 0.41% (2016) to current 0.02% in 2018.
The irony being that despite such an improvement apparently we have no plan to change anything. What a waste!