To: Cserveny Tamas <cserveny.tamas+bc@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com>, Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
References: <CACY+MSO8PM89VTtKfuZiQGvAs7a7R6_4mY+onhZh9KnvwxW2uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1570222.Uh686LP1o4@strawberry>
	<CAGCathxjDsST6xD+CvKN_3md3UcWuKqgSvV+CjaTqS4gPaPGZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACY+MSOPWhTnR-ZR67T1a5ZU2w4pWa6FkXsGF3_C+n3gKFCPSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth@aei.ca>
Message-ID: <e9531342-db9b-ffdf-5ada-0c143eb89d9e@aei.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:40:44 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACY+MSOPWhTnR-ZR67T1a5ZU2w4pWa6FkXsGF3_C+n3gKFCPSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Horizontal scaling of blockchain
Precedence: list

On 01/09/17 02:15 PM, Cserveny Tamas via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Yes. I meant the single thread as an analogy, if a block is found,
> other blocks are worthless. (more or less) Longest chain wins.
>
> My line of though was, that currently the only way to scale with the
> traffic (and lowering the fees) is increasing the block size (which is
> hard as I learned from recent events), or reducing the complexity
> which is less secure (most likely more controversial)
>

It wouldn't be less secure as long as you adjust the confirmation
accordingly. If we decided to mine one block every minute, then your
usual 6 confirmation should become 60 confirmation. In the end, the same
amount of work will have been done to prove the transaction is legit and
so it's just as secure... Actually, one could argue since the average
hash rate over 60 block is more accurate than over 6, it's actually more
secure if you also pay attention to hash rate variation as part of the
confirmation... That help in the scenario a very large pool goes dark to
mine a sidechain.

-- 
Thomas