Is blockchain slow

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement. Venture capitalists want to put everything on the blockchain and generate big returns, but why not just use a database instead?

We are searching data for your request:

Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Content:

• New tools and techniques for designing and planning a hybrid course
• Regulatory curbs may slow Blockchain innovations in India
• Why Blockchain Adoption Is Slow, and Why That’s Nothing to Worry About
• Solana Validators, Engineers Grapple With Blockchain Slowdown on Public Call
• Crypto Banking and Decentralized Finance, Explained
• Blockchain performance issues and limitations
• Banks should slow down to get blockchain right
• What Is The Fastest Blockchain And Why? Analysis of 43 Blockchains
• People don’t trust blockchain systems – is regulation a way to help?

WATCH RELATED VIDEO: Why Bitcoin is so bad for the planet

New tools and techniques for designing and planning a hybrid course

One of the largest sources of confusion in the question of blockchain security is the precise effect of the block time. If one blockchain has a block time of 10 minutes, and the other has an estimated block time of 17 seconds, then what exactly does that mean? What is the equivalent of six confirmations on the minute blockchain on the second blockchain? Is blockchain security simply a matter of time, is it a matter of blocks, or a combination of both? What security properties do more complex schemes have?

Note: this article will not go into depth on the centralization risks associated with fast block times; centralization risks are a major concern, and are the primary reason not to push block times all the way down to 1 second despite the benefits, and are discussed at much more length in this previous article ; the purpose of this article is to explain why fast block times are desirable at all.

The answer in fact depends crucially on the security model that we are using; that is, what are the properties of the attackers that we are assuming exist? Are they rational, byzantine, economically bounded, computationally bounded, able to bribe ordinary users or not? In general, blockchain security analysis uses one of three different security models:.

Reality is a mix between the three; however, we can glean many insights by examining the three models separately and seeing what happens in each one.

Let us first start off by looking at the normal case. Here, there are no attackers, and all miners simply want to happily sing together and get along while they continue progressively extending the blockchain. Now, the question we want to answer is this: suppose that someone sent a transaction, and k seconds have elapsed. Then, this person sends a double-spend transaction trying to revert their original transaction eg.

What is the probability that the original transaction, and not the double-spend, will end up in the final blockchain? One way to relax the model is to assume a small percentage of attackers; if the block time is extremely long, then the probability that a transaction will be finalized can never exceed 1-x , where x is the percentage of attackers, before a block gets created.

We will cover this in the next section. Hence, once the attacker broadcasts their double-spend, it will be accepted in any newly created block, except for blocks in chains where the original transaction was already included. We can incorporate this assumption into our question by making it slightly more complex: what is the probability that the original transaction has been placed in a block that will end up as part of the final blockchain?

The first step to getting to that state is getting included in a block in the first place. The probability that this will take place after k seconds is pretty well established:. Unfortunately, getting into one block is not the end of the story. The possibilities are likely mathematically intractable, so we will just take the lazy shortcut and simulate them:. The results can be understood mathematically.

At 17 seconds ie. Hence, we can see that faster blockchains do have a slight disadvantage because of the higher influence of network latency, but if we do a fair comparison ie. Suppose that portion X of the network is taken up by attackers, and the remaining 1-X is made up of either altruistic or selfish but uncoordinated barring selfish mining considerations, up to X it actually does not matter which miners. The simplest mathematical model to use to approximate this is the weighted random walk.

We start off assuming that a transaction has been confirmed for k blocks, and that the attacker, who is also a miner, now tries to start a fork of the blockchain. We can combine this with a probability estimate for k using the Poisson distribution and get the net probability of the attacker winning after a given number of seconds:. Hence, the faster blockchain does allow the probability of non-reversion to reach 1 much faster.

For example, if attacks happen 10x more often, then this means that we need to be comfortable with, for example, a How high is the requisite X to revert a transaction after k seconds? From an expected-value point of view, the answer is simple assuming a block reward of 1 coin per second in both cases :.

If we take into account stale rates, the picture actually turns slightly in favor of the longer block time:. Now, let us suppose that the desired security margin is worth between four and five times the smaller block reward; here, on the smaller chain we need to compute the probability that after k seconds at least five blocks will have been produced, which we can do via the Poisson distribution:.

Now, let us suppose that the desired security margin is worth as much as the larger block reward:. Here, we can see that fast blocks no longer provide an unambiguous benefit; in the short term they actually hurt your chances of getting more security, though that is compensated by better performance in the long term.

However, what they do provide is more predictability; rather than a long exponential curve of possible times at which you will get enough security, with fast blocks it is pretty much certain that you will get what you need within 7 to 14 minutes. Now, let us keep increasing the desired security margin further:. As you can see, as the desired security margin gets very high, it no longer really matters that much.

However, at those levels, you have to wait a day for the desired security margin to be achieved in any case, and that is a length of time that most blockchain users in practice do not end up waiting; hence, we can conclude that either i the economic model of security is not the one that is dominant, at least at the margin, or ii most transactions are small to medium sized, and so actually do benefit from the greater predictability of small block times.

We should also mention the possibility of reverts due to unforeseen exigencies; for example, a blockchain fork. The conclusion of all this is simple: faster block times are good because they provide more granularity of information. Of course, faster block times do have their costs ; stale rates are perhaps the largest, and it is of course necessary to balance the two - a balance which will require ongoing research, and perhaps even novel approaches to solving centralization problems arising from networking lag.

Some developers may have the opinion that the user convenience provided by faster block times is not worth the risks to centralization, and the point at which this becomes a problem differs for different people, and can be pushed closer toward zero by introducing novel mechanisms.

What I am hoping to disprove here is simply the claim, repeated by some, that fast block times provide no benefit whatsoever because if each block is fifty times faster then each block is fifty times less secure.

A recent interesting proposal presented at the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Montreal is the idea of splitting blocks into two types: i infrequent eg. The theory is that we can get very fast blocks without the centralization risks by essentially electing a dictator only once every on average ten minutes, for those ten minutes, and allowing the dictator to produce blocks very quickly. This is certainly an improvement over plain old ten-minute blocks.

However, it is not nearly as effective as simply having regular blocks come once every ten seconds. The reasoning is simple. Under the economically-bounded attacker model, it actually does offer the same probabilities of assurances as the ten-second model.

One possible improvement to the algorithm may be to have microblock creators rotate during each inter-key-block phase, taking from the creators of the last key blocks, but taking this approach to its logical conclusion will likely lead to reinventing full-on Slasher-style proof of stake, albeit with a proof of work issuance model attached.

However, the general approach of segregating leader election and transaction processing does have one major benefit: it reduces centralization risks due to slow block propagation as key block propagation time does not depend on the size of the content-carrying block , and thus substantially increases the maximum safe transaction throughput even beyond the margin provided through Ethereum-esque uncle mechanisms , and for this reason further research on such schemes should certainly be done.

In general, blockchain security analysis uses one of three different security models: Normal-case model : there are no attackers. Either everyone is altruistic, or everyone is rational but acts in an uncoordinated way. Byzantine fault tolerance model : a certain percentage of all miners are attackers, and the rest are honest altruistic people. The Normal Case Let us first start off by looking at the normal case. The probability that this will take place after k seconds is pretty well established: Unfortunately, getting into one block is not the end of the story.

The possibilities are likely mathematically intractable, so we will just take the lazy shortcut and simulate them: Script here The results can be understood mathematically. Now, let us keep increasing the desired security margin further: As you can see, as the desired security margin gets very high, it no longer really matters that much. Previous Post Next Post.

Regulatory curbs may slow Blockchain innovations in India

Back in February, RBC Capital Markets analysts said Apple Pay would benefit from integrating cryptocurrency offerings into its platform, noting that it would let Apple capture significant crypto market share. And a job posting from May suggests that Apple has been weighing crypto integrations for some time now. Apple Pay could unlock similar engagement if it decides to launch a crypto integration. Related content: Check out how other wallets, like PayPal and Square , are tapping into the crypto phenomenon. Mobile Payments. Digital Payments. United States.

Why Blockchain Adoption Is Slow, and Why That’s Nothing to Worry About

This site uses cookies that are set on your browser to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. To learn more about cookies and how we use them, please see our Privacy Notice available here. Blockchain is a form of distributed ledger technology DLT that uses sophisticated cryptography to store data across computer networks. It has been billed as a solution to almost every challenge known to humanity. But it remains mysterious to most people—and largely untested. Is there potential beyond the hype? True believers think blockchain could eliminate the need for intermediaries in a wide array of transactions and will transform virtually every corner of the global economy—not just the financial system, but also energy markets and supply chains. In , IFC worked with key influencers to examine the potential and perils of blockchain. Conclusions suggest that blockchain could be valuable to developing economies by promoting greater financial inclusion and improving productivity. But, as with all new technologies, a healthy dose of realism is necessary—and not just because of the collapse in cryptocurrency prices.

Solana Validators, Engineers Grapple With Blockchain Slowdown on Public Call

Many of the technologies we now take for granted were quiet revolutions in their time. Just think about how much smartphones have changed the way we live and work. It used to be that when people were out of the office, they were gone, because a telephone was tied to a place, not to a person. Now we have global nomads building new businesses straight from their phones.

Crypto Banking and Decentralized Finance, Explained

Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. With the development of technology, the network structure has changed a lot. Many people regard the Internet of Things as the next-generation network structure, which means all the embedded devices can communicate with each other directly. However, some problems remain in IoT before it can be applied in a large scale. Blockchain, which has become a hot research topic in recent years, may be one of the solutions.

Blockchain performance issues and limitations

In blockchain, decentralization refers to the transfer of control and decision-making from a centralized entity individual, organization, or group thereof to a distributed network. Decentralized networks strive to reduce the level of trust that participants must place in one another, and deter their ability to exert authority or control over one another in ways that degrade the functionality of the network. Decentralization is not a new concept. When building a technology solution, three primary network architectures are typically considered: centralized, distributed, and decentralized. While blockchain technologies often make use of decentralized networks, a blockchain application itself cannot be categorized simply as being decentralized or not. Rather, decentralization is a sliding scale and should be applied to all aspects of a blockchain application.

Banks should slow down to get blockchain right

The problem was simple: A network that usually processes more than 2, transactions per second was stumbling along at speeds below Ethereum processes around 15 transactions per second. The issues had been mostly resolved by Thursday evening, but not before about 35 community members attended a public video chat, including a CoinDesk reporter and at least two Solana Labs engineers. The minute conversation started with tough questions — Could Solana benefit from a centralized observation system?

What Is The Fastest Blockchain And Why? Analysis of 43 Blockchains

Blockchain is a mainstream technology in which many untrustworthy nodes work together to maintain a distributed ledger with advantages such as decentralization, traceability, and tamper-proof. When blocks are propagated in peer-to-peer P2P networks with gossip protocol, the high propagation delay of the protocol itself reduces the propagation speed of the blocks, which is prone to the chain forking phenomenon and causes double payment attacks. To accelerate the propagation speed and reduce the fork probability, this paper proposes a blockchain network propagation mechanism based on proactive network provider participation for P2P P4P architecture. This mechanism first obtains the information of network topology and link status in a region based on the internet service provider ISP , then it calculates the shortest path and link overhead of peer nodes using P4P technology, prioritizes the nodes with good local bandwidth conditions for transmission, realizes the optimization of node connections, improves the quality of service QoS and quality of experience QoE of blockchain networks, and enables blockchain nodes to exchange blocks and transactions through the secure propagation path.

People don’t trust blockchain systems – is regulation a way to help?

The Bitcoin scalability problem refers to the limited capability of the Bitcoin network to handle large amounts of transaction data on its platform in a short span of time. Bitcoin's blocks contain the transactions on the bitcoin network. These jointly constrain the network's throughput. The transaction processing capacity maximum estimated using an average or median transaction size is between 3. The block size limit, in concert with the proof-of-work difficulty adjustment settings of bitcoin's consensus protocol, constitutes a bottleneck in bitcoin's transaction processing capacity. This can result in increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block.

We study the effects of the Internet, especially with respect to routing on public Blockchains, taking Bitcoin as our use case. Next, we provide a concrete relay design that guarantees connectivity to the Bitcoin network even in the presence of a malicious ISP see paper. Both our attacks and our relay design generalize to other public Blockchains. Because of the extreme efficiency of Internet routing attacks and the centralization of the Bitcoin network in few networks worldwide, we show that the following two attacks are practically possible today:.