Quote from: ThePurplePlanet on June 09, 2014, 06:23:56 AM

Quote from: jl2012 on June 09, 2014, 04:33:02 AM

Quote from: ThePurplePlanet on June 08, 2014, 05:43:02 AM

Now since litecoin has 30 less value and 4 times more blocks to secure the received transaction that is equivalent to 1 bitcoin block you have to wait 120 litecoin blocks. So bitcoin is much more secure. (Note that proof of stake has precicely 0 security because one or more past stakeholders can use their stake and reorganize the chain from the point before selling at 0 cost)

This is completely wrong. Assuming the same orphan rate and the same hashrate share among honest and evil miners, one Litecoin block is as secure as one Bitcoin block. The mean block interval is irrelevant.

There has been lots of discussion on this topic. Please search.

No that's simply not true and discussed a lot of times. Based on your logic 1 bitcoin block is as secure as 1 litecoin block which is as secure 1 block of feather coin (which has been attacked multiple times) etc..

Feather coin is not secure because it's total hashrate is too low

Please read Satoshi's paper, section 11: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The probability of an attacker to success (q_z) is just a function of p (% hashrate of honest miners) and q (% hashrate of the attacker). The block interval is NOT part of the equation.

Quote

Anyway as I said in my previous post this thread is about block intervals and decentralization and not block intervals and security. Please don't troll the thread.

Please at least have a correct understanding of block interval, before further discussion.