📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24 📝 Original message:On Friday, May 25, 2012 ...

Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /

npub1dtr…7wrs

2023-06-07 10:09:45

in reply to nevent1q…hgv5

📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24
📝 Original message:On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:51:09 AM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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).

Block times are not accurate enough for that.

Author Public Key

npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs

Seen on

wss://relay.noswhere.com

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 10:09:45

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "3f0d214d682f5694802b525fa94bca19b637b9a0e0f49a80e6481a478e5cd47e", "pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1", "created_at": 1686132585, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "bea123cfa1dde96d98089cdcf953f77564e34363cd7b11c4a3504634664d4aa2", "", "root" ], [ "e", "8324b66cf8ee82f7a64702da5e7b870429aeefc87b5dee8cf5e41903a053e630", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24\n📝 Original message:On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:51:09 AM Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Comments? It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not\n\u003e \u003e\u003e already getting frequent (1 in 20).\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e FWIW, based on statistics for Eligius's past 100 blocks, it seems 10% (1\n\u003e \u003e in 10) of 1-txn blocks is not actually unreasonable. This also means\n\u003e \u003e these 1-txn mined blocks are not necessarily harming Bitcoin\n\u003e \u003e intentionally. Anyone care to figure out the math for how fast miners\n\u003e \u003e need to finish processing transactions to reduce the number of 1txn\n\u003e \u003e blocks?\n\u003e \n\u003e Look at the time since last block, and correlate with the number of\n\u003e non-spam TX's in the memory pool at the time. It is obvious which\n\u003e ones are quick blocks (\u003c60 seconds since last block, no big deal) and\n\u003e which ones are the lazy miners (\u003e 120 seconds since last block).\n\nBlock times are not accurate enough for that.", "sig": "4416cf8f7a3ef9b4eb5939f23c3f738d078fe22672ce00e9e8ec76d520c8ea818ff109f5c2d8f4804c27055c3168a8b4e855e80e25c2a16ac42c6e91c957f7e3" }