I guess shorter time should be better. But I want to listen the opinion of the old members.

Faster block conf times leads to a higher rate of orphaned blocks, increases the likelihood of dishonest folks from succeeding in double-spends in certain circumstances, and creates a larger blockchain.

A confirmation is not a guarantee of authenticity. Decreasing conf time proportionally decreases the "value" of the confirmation. Decreasing confirmation times would be accounted for in services requiring confirmations, where required confirmation times would be increased to completely negate the decreased conf times. (for example, Gox requires 6 confs -- reducing conf time to 5m would result in Gox requiring 12 confs)

... That said... to compromise the Bitcoin network back when the six-conf suggestion was suggested, it was dramatically less expensive to have double-spends confirm. Three confirmations is now more than adequate for all transactions under hundreds of thousands in USD. Going beyond is really just (inadequately) protecting yourself against a fork. Maybe it is time to discuss lowering the target conf time?

ETA: Devs may also be trying to encourage Bitcoin transactions to occur internally on central servers to keep "casual" transactions off the blockchain... OTOH, they seem to be in general consensus that the block size should be increased in the near future. I'm sure one'll come in soon and tell us what's up.

Sorry. I write like a shithead, sometimes.  I'll try to clarify some points I wrote particularly poorly.

When I was talking about expense to confirm double-spends, I was referring to the cost to compromise the Bitcoin network by making up a "dangerous" percentage of the total network hash rate. Network hashrate is dramatically higher now than when 6-conf suggestion was made (that is, when it was decided that 6 confirmations would be implied as "safe" by the Bitcoin client's graphics). It would likely cost millions, now, to get 3 confirmations on a double-spend, whereas it may've taken just a few thousand USD in hardware or hashpower leases far in the past. In this sense, the network is dramatically more secure, now, as it would be extremely expensive to successfully pass off a double-spend as legitimate through multiple block-solvings.

By conf time, I was just referring to the target confirmation time of a block (currently 10m). If you reduce it (say, to 5m), you are decreasing the amount of hash-power required to solve a block (exactly by half compared to what's required with a 10m target conf time). By doing so, it would be twice as easy to pull off a one-conf attack, which many would consider legitimate for smaller transactions. (but, again, this is still now prohibitively expensive even if it's twice as easy to pull off than now... one-conf probably won't be accepted as "legitimate" by most merchants selling something of significant value, so it's kind of a moot point).

The orphan argument I only picked up from others -- I haven't seen stats on it, so I'd take your word on it since I don't have any counter-examples.

ETA: Btw, don't consider me some type of authority on this stuff. I've always shied away from the technical underpinnings of BTC -- ADD, maybe. Bigger block sizes (more transactions allowed per block) might be considered a favorable option of ensuring speedy transaction processing because it doesn't introduce risks at all. Increasing block size 2x would have the same (eventual) effect as having 2x as many blocks, but wouldn't introduce the arguable risk of making merchants more vulnerable to one-conf double-spends (keeping in mind that one-conf double spends are 2x as computationally easy, and thus effectively 2x as cheap with half the conf time).

No it will only increase Bitcoins value and be beneficial.

Harmful in the future

I think it should be left alone 10Mins was what the creator had intended lets not start manipulating the code thats what alt coins are for, let them have this advantage at least e.g Litecoin with 2.5mins 

He also made Bitcoin in such a way where it could be modified if need be.

Kluge, your post made sense. So we can't double difficulty because that would double block time. So by halving difficulty that's what would effect the block time? Correct me if what I'm saying is wrong. If so, that shouldn't be the way to do this. I don't understand how the 5 minute block time affects the security of confirmations though.

With confirmation time, if we were to drop that value instead, would that leave us with a faster operating coin, or would it degrade confirmation quality?

I would love to see confirmation time to go down and I think the network is mature enough to handle a five minute confirmation time, even 56kbp dial-up users would still be able to run a full node.

And Visa/MC are plagued with problems where an auth is not always removed after the charge does hit resulting in ability for the their customer to spend money, sometimes requiring several phone calls to clear it up.

The fact people dont understand parts of bitcoin is common and people always see issues with it when they dont understand it.

Thankfully for a high degree of ability to work on bitcoin you need a high degree of understanding and trust by users that understand as well, otherwise you wont have anyone backing you.

Thankfully you cant just vote to have things magically changed. we have knowledgeable developers working on the client and giving us updates that knowledgeable members can verify for the rest of the users as to whether its a smart move or to scream like mad men if its some dastardly deed to undercut bitcoin.

If you want variation from the trusted and understood basics of what makes bitcoin, then by all means please make another altcoin.

Im not against change. But the way i see it, bitcoin has a path laid out for it. so far we havnt had major problems and were still implementing its basic functions and building up infrastructure. confirmation times are a non issue, if your moving 100K USD then you can afford to wait an hour since wire transfers can take days and cost allot more. if your buying a cup of coffee then a retailer can safely ignore confirmations. the weighted risk for profit against the risk for scam is excessively low to non existent and not financially viable.

The only things polls like these show, is the number of people that understand and the number that dont.