MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201205250045.24540.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201205250045.24540.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 20:51:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpfOh-61z_7e1jzz7ZYV4eiCCi=ruQbKBuQp1juuSdYdbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
Precedence: list

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Comments? =A0It 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 ca=
re to
> figure out the math for how fast miners need to finish processing transac=
tions
> 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).

--=20
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com