pull down to refresh
6 sats \ 20 replies \ @ek 15 Oct 2022 \ parent \ on: I think we're all underestimating Bitcoin bitcoin
Ah, lol problem solved. I was mistaken
The distance to Mars varies between 3 and 23 light-minutes away, making 10 minute block times unusable between planets without intermittant forking.
reply
Yes, problem would come back when Mars is considered.
But with "problem solved" I meant that Bitcoin can indeed literally scale to the moon, haha
reply
Have ppl already been thinking about solutions to this?
Any articles about the problem?
reply
Here's an article that thinks about the future of Bitcoin on other planets! https://unchained.com/blog/law-of-hash-horizons/
reply
I didn't read your link all the way through, but I suspect that bip300 could solve this problem by allowing other planets to branch off into their own independent blockchains but still permit sats to flow between the main earth blockchain and the other planet's blockchain. A layer 2 could be implemented on top of bip300 to allow off chain transactions like lightning, where the transaction between chains would use locked up escrow wallets so you can effectively "email" a UXTO without needing network-wide consensus, and the interplanetary inter-chain channels would only need to be settled occasionally
reply
cool article, but it just begs the question of why not make the block time longer?
If 10 minutes is arbitrary, it is a little silly to say that Bitcoin encourages far away travel because of it’s block time.
reply
10 minutes is not arbitrary, it's a design choice.
10 minutes was specifically chosen by Satoshi as a tradeoff between first confirmation time and the amount of work wasted due to chain splits. After a block is mined, it takes time for the other miners to find out about it, and until then they are actually competing against the new block instead of adding to it.
If someone mines another new block based on the old block chain, the network can only accept one of the two, and all the work that went into the other block gets wasted. For example, if it takes miners 1 minute on average to learn about new blocks, and new blocks come every 10 minutes, then the overall network is wasting about 10% of its work. Lengthening the time between blocks reduces this waste.
It's all about security. The 10 minute block time ensures more security for those transacting in the block.
reply
Lengthening the time between blocks reduces this waste.
So 12, or 15, or heck even 20 minute block times would have even less waste. You didn’t really answer why it’s not arbitrary. But it’s a good reply with good info anyway, so thank you.
reply
It's a trade off between security and speed.
reply
speed was deliberately kept slow to encourage a layer 2, right?
Ah thanks, you have a more detailed answer than me, haha
However, I think there are more points than just the one about waste of hashrate mentioned in the article (which references the bitcoin wiki) like not outpricing normal users from running a full node.
There are most likely more that I am missing.
reply
I don't think it's arbitrary. It must be slow enough for block propagation to work properly in a global network and the cost to run a full node for "normal users" not getting too high too fast due to storage tech not keeping up but fast enough to not stall transactions confirmation.
I think I read an article from the blocksize wars era explaining this. Can see if I can find it if you want.
reply
slow enough for block propagation to work properly in a global network and the cost to run a full node for "normal users" not getting too high too fast due to storage tech not keeping up
but fast enough to not stall transactions confirmation.
It’s kinda impossible to prove that 10 minutes isn’t arbitrary. It could have been 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, etc.
Fast enough to not stall transactions is not valid when talking about 10 minutes. They chose that specifically with the intention of building layer 2
reply
Yes there's lots of discussions but I haven't looked into them lately
reply