That's my point: with a 10 minute block average interval the double spender can wait some minutes before sending the conflicting transaction, on the contrary, with (say) 1 minute blocks 20 to 30 seconds are more than enough to give the merchant a good confidence.
That's encouraging that the fraudulent Peter Todd talking point that "Bitcoin has never intentionally hardforked" is finally getting buried.
Yes, but on the other side, it's better do as less hard forks as possible, so, that should be the right time.
Ethereum has block time around 15-20 seconds and it works great, but to avoid ton of orphans they use "uncles", a very interesting concept that as a side effect changes the number of mined of coins in each block, raising it. This in fact creates a bit more inflation. Also I think orphans are not useful anymore when the block reward will only be made of fees.
From the very first video i saw of Peter Todd i didnt like him. At first i though " maybe its not such a bad thing to have the point of view of a paranoid overly cautious dev " but time and time again they have used obscenely exaggerated truths to scare the public into thinking their way.
agreed.
Whaaa 20seconds i didnt realize it was that low. ya 1min might be "just fine" and really not cause any kind of long term consequences, but its definitely going to take some testing, thinking, and discussion.
IMO, Xapo's block post makes Seg2x supporters look bad, because it gives the impression that they would literally follow any chain that had majority hashing power.
There really is no "tie breaker" because everyone is always free to go off on their own chain. If the economy is split 50/50, there will be a fork. The "tie breaker" is the market, and even then the minority chain can survive (and will if its community is passionate). The forks with the most long term user demand will have more value, regardless of what miners think.
here's the thing, i believe the fundamental split has already occurred and the ones who place more importance on Nakamoto Consensus, have less skin in the bitcoin game. So, while i agree that Nakamoto Consensus is the mechanism by which we make hard decisions, I no longer have any faith that the bitcoin crowd feels the same way.
Something in me resonates with your preference of the "compromise winning" outcome, but the b1x outcome and subsequent rise of bitcoin cash (IF that happens) would also send a very powerful message: "Your stupid propaganda/censorship/narrative control tools don't work on Bitcoin, at least not in the long run. Bitcoin just can't be changed so easily." This would *also* show the the manipulation, the moralization, the politics and the enemy-making to have failed (and they would burn even stronger). AND we'd have gotten rid of segwit and the associated path.
You realize that is how soft forks work! and the only reason we have Segwit is because it makes sense to follow whatever miners do to a point, BCH being a fork that results when miners push too far.
I think you are mistaken, that's not bitcoin. Everyone is free to follow the majority, they can sell or buy "the everyone" creates demand for the rules the miners enforce, Miners could try predict the rules users want, they are also incentivized to be ultra conservative when it comes to changes.
