Heads up: Block time reduction to 6 seconds

Earlier this year, the Quebec protocol upgrade successfully reduced block time from 10s to 8s, marking the 4th block time reduction via seamless protocol upgrades.

Continuing with the plans laid out in the Tezos X roadmap, we intend to include a further reduction of block time from 8 seconds to 6 seconds in the upcoming T protocol proposal.

Besides the lower latency, this would reduce layer 1 finality from 16 seconds to just 12 seconds.

This post aims to give the community a heads-up on this proposed change and the testing involved.

How we test block time reduction

Over the past few months, we have tested this change using the same methodology that was used to ensure safe reduction of blocktime to 10 seconds in the Paris protocol, and to 8 seconds in the Quebec protocol.

In short, to validate this change, we simulate a network designed to closely mirror mainnet conditions:

  • Scale: ~260 active bakers (comparable to mainnet).

  • Hardware (per instance):

    • n2-standard-4 (GCP Compute Engine general-purpose VM)

    • 4 vCPUs

    • 16 GB RAM

    • NVMe SSD

    • High-throughput, low-latency GCP network

  • Processes on each instance:

    • 1 Octez node (L1, 2 cores)

    • 1 DAL node (1 core)

    • 1 baker with a delegate (1 core)

  • Additional infrastructure:

    • A bootstrap node (like the Tezos Foundation’s, with a DAL node)

    • Multiple operation injectors (to simulate external applications at real transaction throughput)

    • 8 DAL producers (each running an Octez node + DAL node, sustaining target bandwidth of 170 KB/s)

  • Monitoring: All nodes include metrics and profiling for observability.

  • Network realism: To mimic real-world conditions, small delays are introduced.

    • Geographical latency: random network delays between 10 ms (close peers) and 150 ms (e.g. Los Angeles ↔ Paris).

    • Signing latency: random delays between 0 ms (Octez wallet) and 500 ms (Ledger Nano S+).

Results

Using the current 8-second block time on this setup, we observed results that align with mainnet, validating the accuracy of our simulation.

We then switched to 6-second block time and ran extensive experiments. These showed no negative impact on the health of the chain:

  • Consensus:

    • 260 bakers consistently produced blocks at round 0.

    • Block quorum was reached in less than 3 seconds, or half the block time, leaving a margin for safety and remaining close to mainnet observations.

  • Bandwidth: The measured bandwidth consumption per baker was 5 Mbits/s.

  • Storage: In line with expectations, we observed a 30% increase in storage consumption, due to the increased number of blocks per minute.

  • DAL: Blocks included 8 DAL commitments and attestations as expected.

Minimal Hardware Requirements

As always, we are focused on ensuring that the Tezos blockchain can be validated on low-spec hardware, which is important for promoting genuine decentralization of the network. Our results confirm that 6-second block time is safe and compatible with existing baker hardware setups, including more recent Raspberry Pi models.

We have adjusted the recommended minimum hardware specifications to include an extra CPU core for those running the DAL, and added a concrete bandwidth recommendation:

  • 4 CPU cores (2 for the node, 1 for the DAL node, and 1 for the baker)

  • 8 GB RAM + 8 GB swap (or 16 GB RAM)

  • 100GB SSD storage (or similar I/O performance)

  • A 10Mbits/s up/down low latency reliable internet connection

Next steps

The T protocol proposal is expected to enter the stabilization phase on October 14, and to be made available for governance injection about a month later.

We invite bakers and community members to:

  • Share details of your current setups

  • Ask questions and raise concerns you might have

This feedback will help us ensure a smooth and inclusive rollout of 6-second block time, should the proposal be adopted.

8 Likes

This is a good and necessary step toward a great UX.

Regarding costs, this change will affect smaller bakers, especially those using Ledger devices. Many are still using ed25519 and a couple are using bip25519 from when it was briefly recommended as superior for baking. Migrating to P-256 should briefly resolve these issues until BLS/tz4 is required, provided block times don’t keep decreasing in the meantime.

Since the Ledger Nano line will not be good to use once BLS/tz4 signing is in place, we should start clearly communicating starting with T that the whole Ledger line is going away and that bakers will have to start migrating to one of the new solutions being developed, sometime around the adoption of T (December/January).

One thing that would really help here is an official migration roadmap for signers: Ledger > BLS/tz4 HSM/SBC. Without clear guidance, small bakers risk being blindsided by performance limits or forced out altogether, which runs counter to the decentralization goals we all share.

This will both prepare us for BLS and eliminate any Ledger-based performance issues related to the block time lowering in T.

4 Likes

Hello @Primate411, thank you for your message!
We’ve opened a dedicated Discord channel for discussions around BLS signing - feel free to ask your questions or share feedback there!