4 ms·

Depending on what it is, 3-6 is a _lot_. For something like a Steam game, it seems like waiting for 1 should be more than enough. I say "more than enough" beca

Depending on what it is, 3-6 is a _lot_. For something like a Steam game, it seems like waiting for 1 should be more than enough. I say "more than enough" because can't they just revoke the key of whatever was purchased if it gets double-spent? Seems easy enough.

doomroot 5y ago
> it seems like waiting for 1 should be more than enough. Not in bitcoin land, orphaned blocks happen a few times a day: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/how-often-forks-occur https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/how-often-f... If you're willing to tolerate this risk then by all means go for it. (I'm with you I think steam should be able to tolerate this risk.)
- bavell 5y ago
  FYI the answer in that link is from 2013, not sure how much it's changed since then but I doubt it's the same today.
  - doomroot 5y ago
    A feature of bitcoin is it’s stubborn system stability and resistance to change :) One of the odd benefits of this is that old forum posts and discussions have a good chance of being relevant. Although I will say lots of progress has been made in p2p message propagation (since this isn’t directly a part of consensus) which could definitely prevent orphan blocks, so you may be on to something in this case.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Yeah, the biggest effects on the number of orphaned blocks should be the number of distinct mining pools and the latency between them. I could see some of those numbers changing enough to matter since 2013, but I'm not all that sure.
- kevincox 5y ago
  But it is much riskier for the fruadster after 1 transaction. With 0 confirmations it is almost certian that a new transaction with a higher fee will replace the older one. With 1 confirmation you have to either swing a lot of mining power or hope that your block becomes orphaned. The fraud likely doesn't make sense anymore if you lose your money 24/25 times instead of almost never. Then Steam can accept that lower risk and mitigate further by then revoking game access.

doomroot 5y ago

> it seems like waiting for 1 should be more than enough. Not in bitcoin land, orphaned blocks happen a few times a day: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/how-often-forks-occur https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/how-often-f... If you're willing to tolerate this risk then by all means go for it. (I'm with you I think steam should be able to tolerate this risk.)

bavell 5y ago
FYI the answer in that link is from 2013, not sure how much it's changed since then but I doubt it's the same today.
- doomroot 5y ago
  A feature of bitcoin is it’s stubborn system stability and resistance to change :) One of the odd benefits of this is that old forum posts and discussions have a good chance of being relevant. Although I will say lots of progress has been made in p2p message propagation (since this isn’t directly a part of consensus) which could definitely prevent orphan blocks, so you may be on to something in this case.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Yeah, the biggest effects on the number of orphaned blocks should be the number of distinct mining pools and the latency between them. I could see some of those numbers changing enough to matter since 2013, but I'm not all that sure.
kevincox 5y ago
But it is much riskier for the fruadster after 1 transaction. With 0 confirmations it is almost certian that a new transaction with a higher fee will replace the older one. With 1 confirmation you have to either swing a lot of mining power or hope that your block becomes orphaned. The fraud likely doesn't make sense anymore if you lose your money 24/25 times instead of almost never. Then Steam can accept that lower risk and mitigate further by then revoking game access.