<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24&#xA;📝 Original message:On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:&#xA;&gt; Comments?  It wouldn&#39;t be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not&#xA;&gt; already getting frequent (1 in 20).&#xA;&#xA;FWIW, based on statistics for Eligius&#39;s past 100 blocks, it seems 10% (1 in &#xA;10) of 1-txn blocks is not actually unreasonable. This also means these 1-txn &#xA;mined blocks are not necessarily harming Bitcoin intentionally. Anyone care to &#xA;figure out the math for how fast miners need to finish processing transactions &#xA;to reduce the number of 1txn blocks?</html></oembed>