{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1zwqjevtyx2gsgvu6my8zuaumq809qmmss7r8vpd48k3xrttys5qqs76ahu","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1zwqjevtyx2gsgvu6my8zuaumq809qmmss7r8vpd48k3xrttys5qqs76ahu","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24\n📝 Original message:I think you need the stronger change.  Otherwise, the mystery miner could\njust put in a few transactions to himself to mask his block.  His block\nwould appear to be of some use while not being helpful.\n\n-Arthur\n\nOn Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at exmulti.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining\n\u003e empty blocks.  Even with satoshi's key observation -- hash a fixed\n\u003e 80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it\n\u003e easier to mine empty blocks, rather than watch the network for new\n\u003e transactions.\n\u003e\n\u003e Therefore I was wondering what people thought about a client\n\u003e implementation change:\n\u003e\n\u003e     - Do not store or relay empty blocks, if time since last block \u003c X\n\u003e       (where X = 60 minutes, perhaps)\n\u003e\n\u003e or even stronger,\n\u003e\n\u003e     - Ensure latest block includes at least X percent of mempool\n\u003e unconfirmed TXs\n\u003e\n\u003e The former is easier to implement, though there is the danger that\n\u003e no-TX miners simply include a statically generated transaction or two.\n\u003e\n\u003e The latter might be considered problematic, as it might refuse to\n\u003e relay quickly found blocks.\n\u003e\n\u003e Comments?  It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not\n\u003e already getting frequent (1 in 20).\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Jeff Garzik\n\u003e exMULTI, Inc.\n\u003e jgarzik at exmulti.com\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Live Security Virtual Conference\n\u003e Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and\n\u003e threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions\n\u003e will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware\n\u003e threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120524/a20243f8/attachment.html\u003e"}