📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24
📝 Original message:On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at 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% (1 in
> 10) of 1-txn blocks is not actually unreasonable. This also means these 1-txn
> mined blocks are not necessarily harming Bitcoin intentionally. Anyone care to
> figure out the math for how fast miners need to finish processing transactions
> to reduce the number of 1txn blocks?
Look at the time since last block, and correlate with the number of
non-spam TX's in the memory pool at the time. It is obvious which
ones are quick blocks (<60 seconds since last block, no big deal) and
which ones are the lazy miners (> 120 seconds since last block).
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 10:09:42
in reply to nevent1q…g9jp
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 10:09:42Event JSON
{
"id": "8324b66cf8ee82f7a64702da5e7b870429aeefc87b5dee8cf5e41903a053e630",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686132582,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bea123cfa1dde96d98089cdcf953f77564e34363cd7b11c4a3504634664d4aa2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a896d25ea89f35a314d178d7c08fac848301e7f98724107b9729d18b090a2d3c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24\n📝 Original message:On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Comments? It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not\n\u003e\u003e already getting frequent (1 in 20).\n\u003e\n\u003e FWIW, based on statistics for Eligius's past 100 blocks, it seems 10% (1 in\n\u003e 10) of 1-txn blocks is not actually unreasonable. This also means these 1-txn\n\u003e mined blocks are not necessarily harming Bitcoin intentionally. Anyone care to\n\u003e figure out the math for how fast miners need to finish processing transactions\n\u003e to reduce the number of 1txn blocks?\n\nLook at the time since last block, and correlate with the number of\nnon-spam TX's in the memory pool at the time. It is obvious which\nones are quick blocks (\u003c60 seconds since last block, no big deal) and\nwhich ones are the lazy miners (\u003e 120 seconds since last block).\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com",
"sig": "d636e3c7f370d8c1cfd19bafd8bc747be4fb322d489a45ebcbeb65f022c4c03fcd6ca71241aca621b12c905697e39acd59d1931db7210a2041a17d17df15333e"
}