Timeline for Why is 6 the number of confirms that is considered secure?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2022 at 7:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Aug 16, 2022 at 14:23 | |||||
| Jan 22, 2016 at 18:57 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting
|
| Dec 23, 2013 at 10:18 | comment | added | user5107 | @MeniRosenfeld Thank you Meni Rosenfeld! I was plotting the relative suggested high confidence confirmation rates for bitcoin & litecoin, and extrapolating logarithmically, I came to the conclusion that a 1s transaction verification could be confirmed with the same confidence in 2.3 minutes. For vanity's sake, I'll assume you proved me right. ;)) | |
| Nov 5, 2013 at 15:17 | comment | added | Meni Rosenfeld | @Griffin: Have a look at bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf and judge for yourself. | |
| S Nov 5, 2013 at 15:12 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated tech
|
| Nov 5, 2013 at 2:41 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 5, 2013 at 15:12 | |||||
| Jul 13, 2013 at 1:53 | comment | added | Griffin | should I assume that David is correct rather than Meni since he's received more votes? | |
| Jan 24, 2012 at 6:15 | vote | accept | osmosis | ||
| Jan 24, 2012 at 6:16 | |||||
| Nov 3, 2011 at 14:30 | comment | added | Meni Rosenfeld | David, I'm afraid you're the one who has a misconception. The math parts which relate to the Poisson distribution and such talk about number of blocks, not time. 6 blocks is what guarantees that someone with, say, 10% of the hashrate, has a negligible chance to succeed double-spending. If each block is 1 minute then that's 6 minutes. The time (1 hour) only matters if we assume the attacker can't maintain his high hashrate for that long. | |
| Sep 21, 2011 at 16:10 | history | edited | David Perry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a link to the Poisson Distribution wikipedia page since it is vital to the understanding of this security measure.
|
| Sep 21, 2011 at 16:09 | comment | added | David Perry | There's a lot of math behind it, but in my (limited) understanding the key is the Poisson Distribution bit. The chances of a modestly armed attacker getting "lucky" and successfully double-spending without having at least 51% of the network falls along such a distribution, and 60 minutes of computing time is the point at which it is adequately unlikely that a transaction may be undone (i.e. the point where the "long tail" of the distribution begins). | |
| Sep 21, 2011 at 6:46 | comment | added | osmosis | That helps some, but it opens up another question. Why is it that 1 hour is expected to be enough to make reversal computationally impractical? | |
| Sep 20, 2011 at 22:38 | comment | added | David Perry | It's also noteworthy that it's largely understood to be "6 blocks or 1 hour" whichever is greater. One of the big misconceptions we've spent a long time fighting (especially in the case of alternate blockchains) is the idea that faster confirmations change anything. A network with a one-minute block time would require 60 confirmations to be considered secure, not 6. | |
| Sep 20, 2011 at 21:17 | history | answered | Stephen Gornick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |