Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2DAE65 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:04:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65E0E9 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so65783163wib.1 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=NtYBYEwBu33CVlbFzh2dQNGNzdv8DZ3IL6WNz0rsUvM=; b=Bb74F3uvQqpx91c2/VM96tiyNkVHaPmlB8R4PVAIYqfOuxU5jWor2XreQPsHIsuUIA b22458PxX/vxdz2YFkcsgaAwtvY6qo7W7yv3mWe7Trzk+t1QLPY8pGQntO8dlwBS+iIB 4yHYkeyG4/M9XZZuI/QBAq+XmudlIeLVcziBLguFhVb/KzJ8YItb5rUh6GqRYIxGuM6A 2BKEEnDjQeel8HC7dFpwQ4R+upx2bnsKBURB2tfGZFenU6jJLr83RjId/fNr08FZuajK fMRwS3AFrSx6rG8K5kbvt7BMnD5x8Ej1wsc8b5MlPgOAMQzdXD00o8oJjAS65ThUyMNm iAyw== X-Received: by 10.180.83.137 with SMTP id q9mr7614573wiy.68.1437836688286; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (azura.nullbyte.me. [94.242.198.164]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m10sm3675153wib.17.2015.07.25.08.04.43 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55B3A589.1010107@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:04:41 +0100 From: Thomas Kerin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, kiwigb@yahoo.com References: <346D4CE0-E00D-4ABB-B131-EFA1416CB20C@me.com> <29363BE6-72A7-4D06-A974-C52BA12FD8BD@gmail.com> <55FFBC8F-A3C9-4109-89C7-AC359FBBD478@me.com> <4734381C-2000-4D9B-9099-DDE3D38D64A3@me.com> <0E15E07E-E21C-4541-869A-3C34CBA35774@gmail.com> <9AC88C7C-4BA4-4DF2-913F-9DC6874BD19D@me.com> <83982C1D-4FE6-4A5C-BC93-BFBD9756F3D2@gmail.com> <55B1FBCE.1080002@jonasschnelli.ch> <1437790691.2111.3.camel@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1437790691.2111.3.camel@yahoo.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080208040309000203020002" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin, Perceptions, and Expectations X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:04:52 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080208040309000203020002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 FWIW, the 6 confirmations figure came from a modest estimate of a miner with 10% of the hash rate, such that there is < 0.1% probability of the transaction being undone. I wonder at times if this figure should fluctuate with the hashrate of the largest player. Presently, AntMiner has 20% of the hashrate, requiring 11 blocks to give you the same certainty. And previously when GHash.io had 45%, the number of blocks to wait would be 340 - over two days! With this in mind, I would be wary about publishing these numbers as they are prone to change. On 25/07/15 03:18, gb via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Validated - (seen on network) > > Settled/Cleared - 1 conf > > Finalised - 6 confs > > On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 00:37 +1000, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> "Fast transactions" >> Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is >> 'instant' by comparison from the spender's POV. Bitcoin is still very >> instant because wallets still send notifications/pings when >> transactions are first seen, not when it goes into a block. We >> shouldn't mislead people into thinking a transaction literally takes >> 10 minutes to travel the globe. >> >> Maybe this feels like PR speak. But being too humble about Bitcoin's >> attributes isn't a good idea either. >> >> If we're going to look at perception, image and expectations, perhaps >> we can start to look at redefining some terminology too. Like >> confirmations, which is an arbitrary concept. Where possible we should >> describe it with finance terminology. >> >> "0 conf transaction" >> 0 conf is the 'transaction' - just the act of making an exchange. It >> doesn't imply safe and I believe using the word 'settle' in place of >> confirmations will automatically click with merchants. >> >> "1st conf" >> A 'confirmation' is a 'settlement'. If it is 'settled', it implies >> final (except by court order), whereas confirmation usually means 'ah, >> I've seen it come through'. I rarely hear any sales clerk call credit >> card transactions confirmed. More often you will hear 'approved' >> instead. Although 1st conf can be overtaken, so... >> >> "n confirmations" >> This term can probably stay since I can't come up with a better word. >> Settlements only happen once, putting a number next to it breaks the >> meaning of the word. "Settled with 4 confirmations" seems pretty >> clear. Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless >> number we ought to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability) >> and go by 'confidence'. "Settled with 92% confidence." Or we can pick >> an arbitrary number like 6 and use 'settling...' and 'settled' when >> reached. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev - -- My PGP key can be found here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVs6WBAAoJEAiDZR291eTlmA4P/1uARaRISbq6ZN9gSy+Tsq+N aooU/irB06IdTnOrxqW/iAS2M2SxqTq5/M6PVMK6LAefRuAAYE6KeDQb5/n2QWIM vBgVeDPBVkq+KHOJlaswO962kl/Mr9TC9xb9hbfB9IdQACLbSwfyQ+cYNY3RRnvl Jkgj7boVjA4o/lE/BxTshPTriQNtVl9c6OxOfXsZotpTphSlMGIUrEHR/t2rjbcV yPeTwHFIAaqcCMivYvfsk24JD9DiygwGVvjqwQPsNF8H9y6xor+QAc23aaD8WPi1 1J91bfRxJWghxyGmsPx1G/EVi/0retE1tZdkyqlahThdSACZtUfA997V0KT/DrdH svHjNclViHExWGL7cUd2s9AMjIz1vr0tUGxvU7KsZT2kEXP0qp96mjIfo0TkZbUb xsYMKujE8ZRpn8+CakfeT7RMtAhGIRvtPDQDm+Qv84A6JOufrgF4C0B00/9kERIe g5hH2YG2R4YD40G4wtxEGpk/2jcdWc37CJ+T17+7m8MgPFNmX8V5YsAFwfPe6iAt 1QON3crilFRYCawYcOypbjh4hb5O5Usvg0msUrvzaRJ7Gj6K/SmFdG4hOepCHbPc g2Bu15ifdmaCa8ssZHK+HJmhbGTMkDqdBnv2lziR8TXIC/se2+y7Iasz4eVkfG1/ RkDgokFOv7YA5aqp5ZHn =VgWS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------080208040309000203020002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

FWIW, the 6 confirmations figure came from a modest estimate of a miner with 10% of the hash rate, such that there is < 0.1% probability of the transaction being undone.

I wonder at times if this figure should fluctuate with the hashrate of the largest player. Presently, AntMiner has 20% of the hashrate, requiring 11 blocks to give you the same certainty. And previously when GHash.io had 45%, the number of blocks to wait would be 340 - over two days!

With this in mind, I would be wary about publishing these numbers as they are prone to change.

On 25/07/15 03:18, gb via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Validated - (seen on network)
>
> Settled/Cleared - 1 conf
>
> Finalised - 6 confs
>
> On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 00:37 +1000, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> "Fast transactions"
>> Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is
>> 'instant' by comparison from the spender's POV. Bitcoin is still very
>> instant because wallets still send notifications/pings when
>> transactions are first seen, not when it goes into a block. We
>> shouldn't mislead people into thinking a transaction literally takes
>> 10 minutes to travel the globe.
>>
>> Maybe this feels like PR speak. But being too humble about Bitcoin's
>> attributes isn't a good idea either.
>>
>> If we're going to look at perception, image and expectations, perhaps
>> we can start to look at redefining some terminology too. Like
>> confirmations, which is an arbitrary concept. Where possible we should
>> describe it with finance terminology.
>>
>> "0 conf transaction"
>> 0 conf is the 'transaction' - just the act of making an exchange. It
>> doesn't imply safe and I believe using the word 'settle' in place of
>> confirmations will automatically click with merchants.
>>
>> "1st conf"
>> A 'confirmation' is a 'settlement'. If it is 'settled', it implies
>> final (except by court order), whereas confirmation usually means 'ah,
>> I've seen it come through'. I rarely hear any sales clerk call credit
>> card transactions confirmed. More often you will hear 'approved'
>> instead. Although 1st conf can be overtaken, so...
>>
>> "n confirmations"
>> This term can probably stay since I can't come up with a better word.
>> Settlements only happen once, putting a number next to it breaks the
>> meaning of the word. "Settled with 4 confirmations" seems pretty
>> clear. Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless
>> number we ought to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability)
>> and go by 'confidence'. "Settled with 92% confidence." Or we can pick
>> an arbitrary number like 6 and use 'settling...' and 'settled' when
>> reached.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

- --
My PGP key can be found here <https://thomaskerin.io/me.pub.asc>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=VgWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------080208040309000203020002--