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 ) 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 ; 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: <201205250045.24540.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 20:51:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Luke-Jr 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:51:17 -0000 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? =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