On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> Block times are not accurate enough for that.
The times in your log are very accurate, assuming your system clock is
remotely accurate.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgar...@exmulti.com
---
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> which ones are the lazy miners (> 120 seconds since last block).
It's important to understand the motivations before acting— otherwise
you'll fail to do anything useful.
E.g. if they're empty because some miners want to drive up fees or
fight
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 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
> 1
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 als
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> These are problematic for legitimate miners:
> 1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is
> severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point
> of Bitcoin's design.
> 1b) This punishes miner
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
> empty blocks. Even with satoshi's key observation -- hash a fixed
> 80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it
> easier to mine empty blocks, rathe
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Robert McKay wrote:
> If miners wanted to continue mining empty blocks without bothering to
> monitor the Tx pool they would just switch to stuffing the empty blocks
> with a dummy transaction of their own to get round your new rules.
Yes. This was stated in the
On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:33:12 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
> empty blocks. Even with satoshi's key observation -- hash a fixed
> 80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it
> easier to mine empty blocks, rather
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
wrote:
> optimization that avoids rechecking transactions that have already been
> verified as valid. Any transactions it doesn't have to verify are from the
> pool, of course :)
Work in this area is already progressing, though it is outsid
I think the strong verification would go well if you add it along with an
optimization that avoids rechecking transactions that have already been
verified as valid. Any transactions it doesn't have to verify are from the
pool, of course :)
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Th
I think you need the stronger change. Otherwise, the mystery miner could
just put in a few transactions to himself to mask his block. His block
would appear to be of some use while not being helpful.
-Arthur
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> There appears to be some non-tr
There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
empty blocks. Even with satoshi's key observation -- hash a fixed
80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it
easier to mine empty blocks, rather than watch the network for new
transactions.
Therefore I was
13 matches
Mail list logo
