1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1SZOQG-00020A-8b
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 29 May 2012 15:33:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.52; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qa0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SZOQA-0007vk-TP
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 29 May 2012 15:33:24 +0000
Received: by qabj34 with SMTP id j34so1865354qab.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 29 May 2012 08:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.44.136 with SMTP id a8mr12456759qaf.34.1338305593250; Tue,
29 May 2012 08:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.55.83 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:33:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTRKGPGv5UyLNXYbYOPQD-ogWykt0KHQsQZ6BuU2dr=NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SZOQA-0007vk-TP
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:33:24 -0000
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
> empty blocks.
In the last 2016 blocks, as I write this, there are only 35 1 txn blocks.
This is about 1.73%, which wouldn't be surprising just from timing
alone. Moreover, a fair amount (I didn't measure the percentage)
appear to be mined by Eligius=E2=80=94 Luke does some clever pre-computatio=
n
of the hash tree for faster distribution right after new blocks.
Resources expended on fancy (and potentially risky) techno-economic
hacks to discourage empty blocks would probably be better spent
writing very fast transaction tree generating code.
Can we kill this thread now?
|
