There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
empty blocks. Even with satoshi's key observation -- hash a fixed
80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it
easier to mine empty blocks, rather than watch the network for new
transactions.
Therefore I was
I think you need the stronger change. Otherwise, the mystery miner could
just put in a few transactions to himself to mask his block. His block
would appear to be of some use while not being helpful.
-Arthur
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
There
I think the strong verification would go well if you add it along with an
optimization that avoids rechecking transactions that have already been
verified as valid. Any transactions it doesn't have to verify are from the
pool, of course :)
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jeff Garzik
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
joel.kaarti...@gmail.com wrote:
optimization that avoids rechecking transactions that have already been
verified as valid. Any transactions it doesn't have to verify are from the
pool, of course :)
Work in this area is already
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com wrote:
If miners wanted to continue mining empty blocks without bothering to
monitor the Tx pool they would just switch to stuffing the empty blocks
with a dummy transaction of their own to get round your new rules.
Yes. This was
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
empty blocks. Even with satoshi's key observation -- hash a fixed
80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it
easier to mine empty blocks, rather
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
These are problematic for legitimate miners:
1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is
severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point
of Bitcoin's design.
1b) This
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
Comments? It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not
already getting frequent (1 in 20).
FWIW, based on statistics for Eligius's past 100 blocks, it seems 10% (1 in
10) of 1-txn blocks is not actually unreasonable. This also
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
Comments? It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not
already getting frequent (1 in 20).
FWIW, based on statistics for Eligius's past 100 blocks, it seems 10%
On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:51:09 AM Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
Comments? It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not
already getting frequent (1 in 20).
FWIW,
10 matches
Mail list logo
