CHIP-2025-03 Faster Blocks: gathering statements of support (and dissent)

[bitcoincashautist]

Great, thanks for clarifying!

[Jonathan_Silverblood]

Maxbit, a regulated brokerage, has told us they treat fast-block coins at 2–3 confirmations and trust that more than 0-conf. That’s the headline case, witnessed by a real counterparty.

This part really should be better known. I had read their statement in passing above and I’m an active participant, but if we have a clear reported case where “less than 10 minutes is fine, as long as there’s blocks”, then that gives significantly more credence to the value of earlier confirmations.

[joemar_taganna]

After careful consideration, I’ve changed my opinion on CHIP-2025-03 (Faster Blocks). I now approve it.

As I stated in my earlier opinion statement:

@joemar_taganna

My main concern is the security represented by the first confirmation. A 1-minute first confirmation is faster, but it is not equivalent to today’s 10-minute first confirmation. At approximately the same hashrate, it represents roughly 1/10th the expected PoW. Equivalent accumulated PoW still takes approximately the same amount of time.

Reading the security section of the CHIP, the questions and responses on the subject, and private conversations with @bitcoincashautist narrowed my concerns down to specific assertions I thought needed further scrutiny. So I proceeded to work out the details independently, primarily for my own understanding.

Here’s what I found:

The PoW arithmetic is still correct: a single 1-minute block contains 1/10th the chainwork of a 10-minute block. However, in a minority-attacker scenario it doesn’t matter, because at the same number of confirmations the reversal probability depends only on the count, not on chainwork. On the other hand, in the majority-attacker scenario it does matter: redoing the work of one 1-minute block costs 1/10th that of a 10-minute block, but the chainwork needed per minute is unchanged, so just requiring ten 1-minute block confirmations erases that difference.

In the end, I realized what really mattered was whether a 1-minute block results in so much less security that even minority attackers could easily double-spend transactions with 1 confirmation. This turned out not to be the case.

If anyone is interested on the analysis I did, the complete report is here:

joemarct/bch-faster-blocks-security/blob/master/REPORT.md

[bitcoincashautist]

Awesome, thank you so much! It’s so cool to get validation in this way, I was in awe when you first showed me this in private!

[BitcoinCashPodcast]

@joemar_taganna

The PoW arithmetic is still correct: a single 1-minute block contains 1/10th the chainwork of a 10-minute block. However, in a minority-attacker scenario it doesn’t matter, because at the same number of confirmations the reversal probability depends only on the count, not on chainwork. On the other hand, in the majority-attacker scenario it does matter: redoing the work of one 1-minute block costs 1/10th that of a 10-minute block, but the chainwork needed per minute is unchanged, so just requiring ten 1-minute block confirmations erases that difference.

In the end, I realized what really mattered was whether a 1-minute block results in so much less security that even minority attackers could easily double-spend transactions with 1 confirmation. This turned out not to be the case.

This is the single best two paragraphs written about Bitcoin in the last 5 years.

Everyone should read it as necessary until they understand, there’s a lot in there.

[ABLA]

This is my personal statement and view [not a statement on behalf of OPTN Lab].

I’ve reviewed the CHIP again, and I think @bitcoincashautist has put a lot of quality work into it on multiple fronts, including the proposal itself, the honest evaluation of alternatives, the well-studied effects on light wallets that use BIP37, and the infrastructure around it. I’ve personally worked on integrating SHV/MMR on OPTN Wallet in anticipation of 1-minute blocks.

Overall, I endorse the CHIP. However, implementation readiness, raised by Calin is what concerns me. I’d like to see this happen, but I don’t think there’s any need to rush if more time is needed for review and testing.

@cculianu

code is not ready and likely to have new and exciting bugs.

So I’m Neutral on activation for now, and will move to Approve once there’s enough confidence that the implementation is ready and safe.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

@BitcoinCashPodcast

Amaury Sechet : Twitter conversation and follow up debate/arguing with me if you’re interested in that

Personally, for project security and safety reason I would completely disregard anything/everything Amaury has to say.

Guy tried to literally destroy this project and started a competing project, which means he has a disruptive agenda.

Even bringing any kind of his of his opinions into this discussion is dangerous.

I really do hope you know what you are doing, Jeremy.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

In the real non-crypto world, prisons and death sentences exist for a reason: The reason is to isolate the dangerous element and remove the influences of the dangerous element to society.

We should do similar here. So if you want BCH to split and self-destruct in the future, keep bringing opinions of dangerous/openly adversarial people into the discussion.

[BitcoinCashPodcast]

@ShadowOfHarbringer

Even bringing any kind of his of his opinions into this discussion is dangerous.

I really do hope you know what you are doing, Jeremy.

I literally only sought his opinion on the request of General Protocols (source here), as explained in my post. If you have an issue with desiring Amaury’s opinion, it lies with them not with me.

That said, while I understand the risk you are considering (reintroducing formerly disruptive characters to being considered authoritative in BCH), I don’t think in this case it’s really a big risk.

Amaury (or any other disruptive character, although yes we should be careful who we actively seek out) can only add two types of opinions:

1. Some poorly researched irrelevant slop. This only discredits the disruptive character even further from relevance. In this case, this is the option Amaury chose.
2. A well researched response, which shows real issues with the CHIP. That’s helpful for the CHIP and BCH. In this case, Amaury’s standing may rise a little - but it comes from having made a positive contribution to the community (even if just by spitefully wanting to find an issue). Whether this is a risk or not hinges on the BCH community’s ability to maturely and accurately judge the value and intention of his critique. I trust us to be able to do that. However, it also in a small way opens the possibility for Amaury’s redemption. Possibly he sees that being a cooperative contributor accrues some benefit to him in a subject he is passionate about and has a personal moment of growth or change of heart. That would be a very, very, very good thing. If he truly could change his attitude or approach & learn to contribute positively to BCH - it would be a titanic signal to anyone paying attention that BCH truly is a special project able to heal old wounds in order to rebuild network effect.

So I understand the risk, but I think in this case it was more than justified. We’re going to have to take similar risks (and even HAVE taken similar risks) in our previous efforts to rehabilitate BSV supporters, BTC supporters, XEC supporters etc. We’re yet to have a case of a highly disruptive or problematic returnee, which speaks to the strength of the culture in BCH. We can be open to having people look at our project & begin to understand its merits without a need for permanent excommunication in self-protection.

(Note: We weren’t ALWAYS in a position of united strength & positive momentum where we could take those risks. Right after the XEC split and also during/after the CoinFlex fallout are great examples. But right now we are, so it’s a good time to try.)

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

@BitcoinCashPodcast

I literally only sought his opinion on the request of General Protocols (source here), as explained in my post. If you have an issue with desiring Amaury’s opinion, it lies with them not with me.

That said, while I understand the risk you are considering (reintroducing formerly disruptive characters to being considered authoritative in BCH), I don’t think in this case it’s really a big risk.

It’s always a risk.

See, the intelligent and meritful people are the most dangerous, because they can run circles around less-intelligent people, outsmart them with ease.

I am seriously starting to think we should implement some form of “virtual prison” for people that are deemed a danger to this project.

@BitcoinCashPodcast

So I understand the risk

I don’t think you do.

By giving him platform, you are also automatically increasing his standing in this project, you are basically returning him to a minor “alpha” status, because you said “he has merit”.

I will repeat this again: The evil people with merit are the most dangerous ones.

People follow. And people follow both ethical and unethical types. You have made it almost certain somebody in the community will think about Amaury as a “smart guy” and wish to “be like him”, “look up to him” et cetera. These are automatic and subconscious things, most people cannot control it.

[bitcoincashautist]

@ShadowOfHarbringer

I will repeat this again: The evil people with merit are the most dangerous ones.

People follow. And people follow both ethical and unethical types.

This is the best part of your post and something we should remember. But still, in this instance the risk was low because it offers no opportunity for continuous engagement and rehabilitation, it was a 1-off for this particular upgrade.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

@bitcoincashautist

it was a 1-off for this particular upgrade.

I would certainly hope , that for the sake of survival of this project, @BitcoinCashPodcast won’t ever do it again.

[BitcoinCashPodcast]

@ShadowOfHarbringer

I am seriously starting to think we should implement some form of “virtual prison” for people that are deemed a danger to this project.

That already exists. It’s called social exclusion, it operates informally, and it’s working perfectly fine.

But you should reflect on the fact that most prisons do not jail most people for life, and in fact it is common and expected even that people can and usually are somewhat rehabilitated and released early with signs of good behaviour or improved readiness to return to society.

@ShadowOfHarbringer

for the sake of survival of this project, @BitcoinCashPodcast won’t ever do it again.

You’re catastrophising enormously over something that was very very low risk, did not cause any problems, showed a positive willingness by the BCH community to do the best possible work we can with external consultation on our upgrades & hopefully somewhere in the back of Amaury’s mind has moved him forward on his journey of maturity.

I will definitely do this again if a similar situation presents itself. We don’t need less of this, we actually need MORE of this (while we’re in a strong position to be able to handle the incoming attention or responses as a united & positive movement).

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

@BitcoinCashPodcast

You’re catastrophising enormously over something that was very very low risk, did not cause any problems, showed a positive willingness by the BCH community to do the best possible work we can with external consultation on our upgrades & hopefully somewhere in the back of Amaury’s mind has moved him forward on his journey of maturity.

Of what I understand, Amaury is right now considered “stakeholder” in the 1-min block CHIP.

So if that “stakeholder” came here right now and either approved or disapproved of this upgrade, would you

1. Immediately tell everyone to disregard his opinion
2. Say his opinion is “noted”
3. Continue the discussion as if nothing has happened
4. Appeal to the mods for the removal of the opinion of such a “stakeholder”

?

I would do 4) and perhaps 1) too. What would you do?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Now I retry the same question with

1. Adam Back
2. Michael Saylor

I wonder what is your opinion in this matter?

[BitcoinCashPodcast]

Lol I would do “2.” I would note Amaury’s opinion, review it for any valid points (and request those be factored into the CHIP), dispute it if important on points where I disagreed or were not valid. If it wasn’t that substantive, I would probably ignore it.Same thing I would do for any other stakeholder.

I would also do the same for Michael Saylor & Adam Back.

If your strategy for handling stakeholder opinion submissions is to try & censor them and attack the stakeholders instead of either appreciating or debunking their actual arguments & submission as necessary, well that’s fine you can do whatever you want, but it’s not going to be very effective & it will just get your opinion devalued for being full of ad-hominems (no matter how “bad guy” the commenters are) in the same way as stakeholders who submit poorly researched complaints.

[kzKallisti]

If 90% of users are against us I want them to go away or whatever theymos said

BCH is for everyone. If Amaury or Adam or Saylor or whoever has an opinion we take it on the same basis as everyone else’s opinions.

[TheElliotPrice]

If an enemy is so kind as to let us know the peril we are walking into with hard / impossible to refute logic, we should thank them, and change course accordingly.

[TheElliotPrice]

I personally endorse CHIP-2025-03 Faster Blocks for Bitcoin Cash.

Ten-minute blocks and a variance that often sees much longer waits are below the expectations of the masses. Permissionless money is the USP, but the UX needs to be much closer to fiat for any meaningful success of global money. People place convenience very highly on their priorities, and BCH should aim to meet that as best as possible while remaining decentralised permissionless money.

One-minute blocks would cut that wait sharply and give a more modern first confirmation that many sites and services that cannot or do not support 0-conf transactions. The implementation offers exchanges and BCH services more granular control over their own security rules. I am convinced that for platforms that require confirmations, this extra control will lower waiting times in practice rather than only on paper.

This endorsement depends on the software being ready for deployment, and see not urgent rush to deploy at the expense of careful node work, review, and testing.

I also want to recognise the author, bitcoincashautist. The research, the written CHIP, and the effort to reach stakeholders are serious, detailed, and in the open. That is how a change of this size should be done.

Bitcoin Cash is in a hard race, and competition, especially from fiat and centralised chains, has never been tougher. BCH has to keep adapting and improving. Although I think the larger part of that battle now lies in tooling, services and products rather than on the base layer, there are still several key improvements that can be made to improve BCH as sound money, and faster blocks is one of them.

BCH also has to protect the stability that global sound money needs. This CHIP, handled with that balance, is a step forward. Thank you to everyone who has argued for it, argued against it, and stayed in the process with care and signal. This is how healthy consensus is formed.

This is my personal endorsement and does not represent any other organisation or project I am affiliated with.

[TheElliotPrice]

ViaBTC Customer Support replied on 28th September 2026 to BCH Alliance reach out regarding CHIP-2025-03

Dear Elliot Price ,

Thank you for contacting us.

We have reviewed the proposal and support this initiative.

Please keep us updated, and feel free to reach out if there are any dedicated testnets or testing tools available for pool operators in the future.

Kind regards,

ViaBTC Customer Support