4 ms·
> 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/ques
by 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 agoFYI 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 agoA 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 agoYeah, 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 agoBut 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.