It's important that the Bitcoin Cash community doesn't conflate "the original vision" of Bitcoin with "the original design specification" of Bitcoin.
We need a strong, unified community around the vision of peer-to-peer electronic cash. That means the end-product has low transaction fees, a limited supply, no middle-men, is fast and reliable, and is easy to use for everybody on earth. That's what we mean by "the original vision," and that doesn't mean "the exact technical implementation of v0.1 of Bitcoin." The technical details are only relevant as a means to the end of global p2p money.
We forked away from BTC because the Core developers abandoned the original vision - not because they abandoned the original design implementation. They changed p2p cash into a "store of value" token that is intentionally built around high-fees to access the blockchain. That's not what I signed up for, and it's not what I wrote my Bitcoin book about in 2014.
If it were possible for the Core developers to actually create a product in line with the vision, I think most Bitcoin Cashers would support them and celebrate their creation.
However, we will run into big issues if we conflate "returning to, and sticking with, the original vision" with "returning to, and sticking with, the original implementation."
One parameter which has caused controversy is the block time. I do not think a 10min block time is essential to Bitcoin's design. The block time is a means to an end. If the technology and user experience can be improved by reducing the block time, without significant risk, it should be reduced.
However, I don't claim to be a technical guy. So I've asked a Bitcoin dev with much deeper knowledge about the topic, and I want to summarize his points. Devs might find these claims valuable.
All feedback/questions/criticism is welcome:
1) A 10-minute block time is not an essential, set-in-stone parameter. It's preferable to make it as low as possible, but no lower. 1 minute, or even 30 second blocks, could work in the right circumstances.
2) The optimal block time depends on the network topology.
3) If the topology is a mesh network, the block time should remain at 10 minutes.
4) If the topology is a small world network, the block time can be reduced substantially.
5) Bitcoin is not "inherently" a mesh network or a small world. It can be either.
6) The code which determines the network structure is at the client-level, not the protocol-level. Changing it does not require protocol changes.
7) A small-world network is superior to a mesh network, with few drawbacks. Regardless of Bitcoin's current topology, it should end up being upgraded to a small-world. Which means at some point, Bitcoin's block time should end up being reduced.
If these claims are true - if the block time is a safe parameter to tweak - we shouldn't worry that Bitcoin is being hijacked, as it was by the Core developers. Bitcoin with 1min blocks is still Bitcoin, just upgraded - like when we finally increased the blocksize cap, which was also a non-essential parameter.
I would like to hear other old-timers opinions on this issue. The blocksize war is finally over, and many of the bad actors have been left behind. I'm not sure we can withstand a block time war.
 

$2.25
0.0¢

Reviews
1 of 1 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 1 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
Comments
  earned 0.0¢
You've either been mislead, or you doing the misleading.
~old timer
0.0¢
   11mo ago
  earned 10.0¢
@cryptoanarchist - I'm trying not to be misled. Can you please correct me and give more details on why you think the 10min blocktime is an essential parameter?
10.0¢
   11mo ago
10.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
The 10 minute blocktime could technically go faster, no problem. But as it is also used for blockrewards to miners, releasing new bitcoins, it would disrubt the mining incentive sceme in the long run. So if you pull on this aspect, you might risk pulling the whole thing apart.
0.0¢
   11mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
The Satoshi vision, to me, is an economic model made possible by some tech. The client is just an implementation and shouldn't be set in stone as the ever changing world might force upgrading codes to keep it secure. Changing Blocktime is not just a technical adjustment, but also adjusts the vision because blockrewards are linked to blocktime.
0.0¢
   11mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
Disclaimer: not old timer.
I agree that it's not a defining property of bitcoin. In fact, we're talking about an "average time" and not a specific parameter or value that is enforced. Bitcoin rarely (if ever) has an average block time of 10 minutes due to the continuous increase in hash power.
But I also think there wont be a "block time war" because it's very hard to argue in favor of pushing that value down without immediately seeing negative effects on the system. Remember that with the block size, bigger blocks would mean an increased usage of resources but would also mean more usage of the system. Without more people using bitcoin you would not need bigger disks and more powerful processors.
Lowering the block time has an immediate and quantifiable negative impact on the network without the corresponding direct beneficial impact to the system. The increased usability of "1 minute blocks" might or might not attract more users while it consistently "hurts" miners, for example.
Imagine the choice:
Would you prefer a network with an average block time of 1 minute and a minimum fee of 10 sat/byte, or with an average block time of 10 minutes and 1 sat/byte?
The fee values are arbitrary. I just wanted to suggest that the extra cost would probably appear somewhere else. By using the fee to reflect the costs of reducing the block time the problem is transformed from a technical problem into a user choice.
0.0¢
   11mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
@Donald - any tweaks to the block time would definitely be coupled with a change in the block rewards. If we went down to 1min blocks, each block would have 1/10th the coins. The coin release schedule stays the same. @Claudio - lower block times shouldn't affect miners negatively. If anything, they might get slightly more regular payouts, since they'll have an increased chance of finding a block per hour. More blocks will not affect their harddrive space, as the blocks will be smaller, though there's more of them. Harddrive space gets taken up by usage, not by the nominal amount of blocks. The only exception is the block-headers, which would actually increase with 1min blocks. This could be relevant for SPV wallets, but that's about it.


0.0¢
   11mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
I agree that the end goal is fast secure payments, but i don't see how faster blocks make it more secure or faster as no blocktime will ever become "instant" as necesary to be a real cash system. The 10-minute interval allows a good safety margin for block propagation across the entire network. The rate of orphaned blocks increases with faster blocktime, and this would make 0-conf less secure. Faster block time requires some tweeking such as adjusting block difficulty which has an effect on the amount of proof of work per block, coin distribution and i guess some other stuff we are not aware off yet. I rather have a more secure 0-conf than faster block time. But it all depends on if you can trust 0-conf to be secure enough and how fast you could detect a potential double spend.
0.0¢
   11mo ago