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
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1SXikP-0004ZY-5z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 May 2012 00:51:17 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SXikO-00054V-4u
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 May 2012 00:51:17 +0000
Received: by lbol5 with SMTP id l5so443688lbo.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 24 May 2012 17:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state;
bh=Iko0mCZ9TiXfqDohTkHBOG20RH6suo83tWhXFJwvTTs=;
b=Qe3PIZ8RlRZwG92On0u/Igs1eCUwKXOBwXRp1Etqu/g0ehPxM+KzaohwFJor6cBnpR
5uCrUVwMsJDH5SOMqxcBzsjykTH5MMgRpx/V3yiCSYpH3YQdxOePiqiDDnBbdkVkehXv
9K5rSGTKXep13EoCCG2M6xESQrjRngsegf2q0EnqijXK7NMGTWQheVjh004+/FXPEGav
MaV8hu6rRMDCGP1fiEYhMZ+uyuXRpWO8G0d0nmEvcvAiZ/Gf1L1r+4KjTW0BJdcHllju
f+DFxY7owEziyra1BQOkZPCkG+hId7NMkyBWAyPlwxe1SQZfIzoJ95R/Ybr+I+EP7JDg
TNaw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.102.234 with SMTP id fr10mr1455331lab.32.1337907069468;
Thu, 24 May 2012 17:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.0.103 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2012 17:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [99.43.178.25]
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
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOpyREqTIGhHp+mIOs/yaZXqNKksrNiVozwr9DcIkl1SowzTx/zU4ke0XxWM8JXoGZ2NwF
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SXikO-00054V-4u
Cc: 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: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:51:17 -0000
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
|
