4 ms·

The only thing that really matters is how much work has been built up on top of the transaction. Shorter block times doesn't change that function at all. In a v

The only thing that really matters is how much work has been built up on top of the transaction. Shorter block times doesn't change that function at all. In a version of bitcoin with 1 minute block times, the security guarantee of 60 blocks is identical to the current security guarantee of 6 blocks, because it would be exactly the same amount of energy going into mining to create immutability. The amount of work (hashes) represents a real world cost (electricity and mining chips) that can't be undone without massive commitment of these real world resources. This is the foundation of why bitcoin works. So basically, people who say their blockchain with shorter block times is "faster" are either fools who don't understand what's going on or conmen trying to pump and dump their bags. Layer one transaction confirmation is about settlement finality, not how fast you can pay for coffee.

schoen 5y ago
I think the faster block times help with conceivably making it possible to use 1 confirmation instead of 0 confirmations for in-person transactions, as opposed to than 60 instead of 6. That tilts the odds of winning in a double-spend fraud attempt in favor of the merchant quite a bit, compared to 0 confirmations, although I don't know how to model by how much. (You could empirically estimate by how much by looking at abandoned chain history in a real network, though.)
bavell 5y ago
Great answer. This is related in my mind to the framing of crypto "pointlessly wasting" electricity - it's actually a fundamental part of securing the network by making it prohibitively expensive to reverse or modify mined blocks. I'm open to alternatives to PoW but so far it's been the most successful tool to solve this problem.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Proof of work is an alternative to military spending. Proof of stake doesn't solve this problem, as the top stakers end up needing to control (or get coopted by) the monopolies on violence. The traditional banking system is effectively an obscured proof of stake system. Proof of work also has the nice feature that every watt of energy used to acquire and secure bitcoin is a watt that can't be used for violence. You might like the work of Jason Lowry, a US Space Force Major who's currently studying bitcoin conceptualized as a new kind of military technology, https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery
  - 3np 5y ago
    > Proof of stake doesn't solve this problem, as the top stakers end up needing to control (or get coopted by) the monopolies on violence How so? Assuming (pseudo-)anonymity for stakers is possible.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      Long lasting anonymity of stakers is impossible. Eventually, everyone will be tracked down. There's too much power at stake to remain hidden from establishment power forever. And anonymity of stakers who have unassailable control of the network consensus is exactly the problem. If you don't know who the king is or where he lives, then the peasants have zero ability to countervail his control authority when he starts abusing his power. No sovereign nation or person will sign up for a system like that without being violently coerced, like the US does to keep the rest of the world on the petrodollar standard.

schoen 5y ago

I think the faster block times help with conceivably making it possible to use 1 confirmation instead of 0 confirmations for in-person transactions, as opposed to than 60 instead of 6. That tilts the odds of winning in a double-spend fraud attempt in favor of the merchant quite a bit, compared to 0 confirmations, although I don't know how to model by how much. (You could empirically estimate by how much by looking at abandoned chain history in a real network, though.)

bavell 5y ago

Great answer. This is related in my mind to the framing of crypto "pointlessly wasting" electricity - it's actually a fundamental part of securing the network by making it prohibitively expensive to reverse or modify mined blocks. I'm open to alternatives to PoW but so far it's been the most successful tool to solve this problem.

anonporridge 5y ago
Proof of work is an alternative to military spending. Proof of stake doesn't solve this problem, as the top stakers end up needing to control (or get coopted by) the monopolies on violence. The traditional banking system is effectively an obscured proof of stake system. Proof of work also has the nice feature that every watt of energy used to acquire and secure bitcoin is a watt that can't be used for violence. You might like the work of Jason Lowry, a US Space Force Major who's currently studying bitcoin conceptualized as a new kind of military technology, https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery
- 3np 5y ago
  > Proof of stake doesn't solve this problem, as the top stakers end up needing to control (or get coopted by) the monopolies on violence How so? Assuming (pseudo-)anonymity for stakers is possible.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Long lasting anonymity of stakers is impossible. Eventually, everyone will be tracked down. There's too much power at stake to remain hidden from establishment power forever. And anonymity of stakers who have unassailable control of the network consensus is exactly the problem. If you don't know who the king is or where he lives, then the peasants have zero ability to countervail his control authority when he starts abusing his power. No sovereign nation or person will sign up for a system like that without being violently coerced, like the US does to keep the rest of the world on the petrodollar standard.