[2019-05-12] Bitcoin Is 11 Times 'Faster' Than Litecoin, New Data Reveals

[tyz]

Bitcoin Is 11 Times 'Faster' Than Litecoin, New Data Reveals

One of the most common criticisms leveled against Bitcoin is that it is slow, at least compared to newer imitations. But its level of decentralization means just 6 transaction confirmations provide complete protection against double spending.

https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-5x-faster-ethereum-litecoin/

[1715026126]

1715026126

[o_e_l_e_o]

But its level of decentralization means just 6 transaction confirmations provide complete protection against double spending.

The largest mining pool currently has around 17% of the hash power. If they were to coordinate to attempt an attack (I appreciate this is unlikely), they would have approximately a 0.5% chance of overcoming a 6 block deficit and overtaking the main chain. In the past, some pools have had 25-30% of the hash power, which would correspond to a 5-13% chance of success against a 6 block deficit. I appreciate these are unlikely scenarios, but saying 6 blocks provides "complete protection" is not true. It provides very good protection, yes, but if someone managed to control 40% of the hash rate, 6 blocks provides only a 50% chance of not being reversed.

There is nothing special about the 6 block target that we are all familiar with. It was arbitrarily chosen as an acceptable trade off between speed and safety. It is overkill in the vast majority of cases, but at the same time, it wouldn't be enough against a large enough attacker.

[Carlton Banks]

There is nothing special about the 6 block target that we are all familiar with. It was arbitrarily chosen as an acceptable trade off between speed and safety. It is overkill in the vast majority of cases, but at the same time, it wouldn't be enough against a large enough attacker.

can't remember exactly who/where, but it has been suggested pretty recently to increase the target for the interval between blocks to more than 10 minutes. I'd like to hear more about the case to do so, but we can safely assume that it's unlikely to happen any time soon, as a hard fork is required. There's no unanamity about inceasing the block interval, but there certainly is about decreasing it; no-one with any credibility is suggesting it, as Litecoin and other such coins have demonstrated the problems with that approach.

[Carlton Banks]

can't remember exactly who/where, but it has been suggested pretty recently to increase the target for the interval between blocks to more than 10 minutes.

Isn't it really bad idea? It could mess with Bitcoin production/inflation rate and broke script/HTLC which uses block height as "time".

right, there are alot of considerations to take into account (correcting the inflation rate back to 21 million target etc).

But fixing something so fundamental is important, IF there is a strong case to be made that it's broken. The inflation rate or locktimes for HTLCs don't matter if something as basic as the block interval target is the wrong value to protect against malicious chain re-orgs. Maybe it's fine, there are no problems like that in the real world today. And the more the hashrate rises, the harder that becomes.

No-one's shouting about this, to put it in perspective.

[hatshepsut93]

Confirmation times are all about risk management, which is why different services have different requirements for Bitcoin confirmations. If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this. But someone who accepts dozens or even hundreds of BTC per transactions should wait for 6 confirmations or even more. The general idea should be that the cost of double-spending attack (which translates to the number of confirmations) should be much bigger than the value of the transaction. Services that are at risk of doublespending should also have some monitoring system, because one 1000 BTC transaction can be split into 10 transactions worth 100 BTC each.

[1Referee]

If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this.

BitPay even accepts zero fee Bitcoin transactions as long as the amount is below $50 and the fee used is appropriate according to the sate of the network.

Bitcoin has proven to be secure enough to consider transactions final after 1 confirmation, but you and the party transacting could have other terms to consider what is final and what isn't. Bitcoin's hashrate distribution hasn't been this decentralized since I can remember, which adds to people's confidence.

Ethermine and Sparkpool both almost account for 50% of the hashrate distribution in Ethereum, and the same applies to Litecoin. These are considered the most secure POW chains after Bitcoin. No wonder that their on-chain value transfers lag behind significantly. The big value movements happen on Bitcoin's chain.

[Carlton Banks]

If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this.

BitPay even accepts zero fee Bitcoin transactions as long as the amount is below $50 and the fee used is appropriate according to the sate of the network.

it's unwise whichever business is doing it, it only demonstrates they have no clue what they are doing

Bitcoin has proven to be secure enough to consider transactions final after 1 confirmation

no it hasn't. did you not see that news story about zero-confirmation attacks against Bitcoin ATM's?


zero confirmations are not, never were and never will be in any way safe. If you accept a transaction as paid when it has zero confirms, and you get robbed, it's your fault for being so foolish

[1Referee]

Bitcoin has proven to be secure enough to consider transactions final after 1 confirmation

no it hasn't. did you not see that news story about zero-confirmation attacks against Bitcoin ATM's?


zero confirmations are not, never were and never will be in any way safe. If you accept a transaction as paid when it has zero confirms, and you get robbed, it's your fault for being so foolish

Can you not read? I was talking about transactions after 1 confirmation, not without a confirmation. I stand by it, it has proven to be secure enough.

And yes, I agree that the ATM operator burned itself by letting people withdraw without a single confirmation. How can you not expect criminals to abuse it, lol. It's like having a legacy ATM spit out free money just by pressing a few random buttons. That's what happens when people rush to start up a business in an attempt to front run potential competitors.

It reminds me of how many exchanges in Japan rushed to go live and got hacked due to how insecure their platform was. If you don't know what you're doing, you're paying for it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I was talking about transactions after 1 confirmation, not without a confirmation. I stand by it, it has proven to be secure enough.

Stale blocks, often incorrect called orphan blocks, happen not infrequently even without an entity actively attacking the network. The most recent one was in February, as you can see here: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/orphaned-blocks. If you had a transaction included in one of these blocks, it would have initially shown up as having 1 confirmation, before being reversed when the block in question was dropped in favor of the longer chain.

Even with only 1% of the hashrate, you would still have a 1/50 chance of overcoming a 1 block deficit. That is not a negligible risk, especially for frequent trades or large volumes.

[1Referee]

I am aware of that, but I don't consider it to be much of a potential worry for me.

The amounts I work with don't justify me to be super duper paranoid and to wait for 3-6 confirmations. I have never had a problem going by the 1 confirmation "rule" and will continue like that. Secure enough is secure enough for me.

[Carlton Banks]

I was talking about transactions after 1 confirmation, not without a confirmation. I stand by it, it has proven to be secure enough.

Stale blocks, often incorrect called orphan blocks, happen not infrequently even without an entity actively attacking the network. The most recent one was in February, as you can see here: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/orphaned-blocks.

Apparently blockchain.com's figures under-represent the frequency of stale/orphaned blocks, but only somewhat. In truth, it's not possible to record every stale block, as not every node receives both/all blocks that are in race.

And I agree, accepting 1 confirmation tx's is not a good idea for this reason. 2-6 depending on how you feel about the value (and the circumstances)

And yes, I agree that the ATM operator burned itself by letting people withdraw without a single confirmation. How can you not expect criminals to abuse it, lol. It's like having a legacy ATM spit out free money just by pressing a few random buttons. That's what happens when people rush to start up a business in an attempt to front run potential competitors.

It reminds me of how many exchanges in Japan rushed to go live and got hacked due to how insecure their platform was. If you don't know what you're doing, you're paying for it.

natural selection/free market in action

[zero confirmations are not, never were and never will be in any way safe. If you accept a transaction as paid when it has zero confirms, and you get robbed, it's your fault for being so foolish

Can you not read? I was talking about transactions after 1 confirmation, not without a confirmation. I stand by it, it has proven to be secure enough.

you're completely right, I did not read what you wrote correctly. I offer you my apology, I responded to something you did not say in my haste.

[buwaytress]

If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this.

BitPay even accepts zero fee Bitcoin transactions as long as the amount is below $50 and the fee used is appropriate according to the sate of the network.

Yup, that's true about Bitpay. Confirmation is instant and I have used it also for over $100 (in euros anyway) BUT their fee estimation for what they consider appropriate is way, way above what's normal, about two times as much as is necessary for a 90% next block confirmation, as far as I can tell. Bad way to do business, they should just leave it at 1 confirmation, as then people cand decide how soon it happens. They've switched off RBF too (as soon as it detects RBF it becomes an unconfirmed tx) so you basically have no choice but to overpay, regardless of the network.

[Carlton Banks]

If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this.

BitPay even accepts zero fee Bitcoin transactions as long as the amount is below $50 and the fee used is appropriate according to the sate of the network.

Yup, that's true about Bitpay. Confirmation is instant and I have used it also for over $100 (in euros anyway) BUT their fee estimation for what they consider appropriate is way, way above what's normal, about two times as much as is necessary for a 90% next block confirmation, as far as I can tell. Bad way to do business, they should just leave it at 1 confirmation, as then people cand decide how soon it happens. They've switched off RBF too (as soon as it detects RBF it becomes an unconfirmed tx) so you basically have no choice but to overpay, regardless of the network.

Bitpay are idiots, they make you pay 2-3x too much, but prevent you from upping their expensive fee if that's not enough. Then the next Bitpay customer comes along, and Bitpay increase the fee they pay, leaving your transaction stuck in a queue despite overpaying fees, and you cannot bump the fee

It's a perfect recipe for creating expensive tx's that get stuck unconfirmed. People might think "Bitcoin is expensive and slow", when in fact Bitpay are morons. Why would they do that?