Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SXiqv-0004db-FR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 May 2012 00:58:01 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1SXiqu-0005J6-OQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 May 2012 00:58:01 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [97.96.85.141]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A5CD56056A; Fri, 25 May 2012 00:57:48 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Jeff Garzik Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:57:38 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.12-gentoonestfix-intelwr; KDE/4.8.1; x86_64; ; ) References: <201205250045.24540.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201205250057.39749.luke@dashjr.org> 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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1SXiqu-0005J6-OQ 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:58:01 -0000 On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:51:09 AM Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr 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.