<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2012-05-24&#xA;📝 Original message:There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining&#xA;empty blocks.  Even with satoshi&#39;s key observation -- hash a fixed&#xA;80-byte header, not the entire block -- some miners still find it&#xA;easier to mine empty blocks, rather than watch the network for new&#xA;transactions.&#xA;&#xA;Therefore I was wondering what people thought about a client&#xA;implementation change:&#xA;&#xA;     - Do not store or relay empty blocks, if time since last block &lt; X&#xA;       (where X = 60 minutes, perhaps)&#xA;&#xA;or even stronger,&#xA;&#xA;     - Ensure latest block includes at least X percent of mempool&#xA;unconfirmed TXs&#xA;&#xA;The former is easier to implement, though there is the danger that&#xA;no-TX miners simply include a statically generated transaction or two.&#xA;&#xA;The latter might be considered problematic, as it might refuse to&#xA;relay quickly found blocks.&#xA;&#xA;Comments?  It wouldn&#39;t be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not&#xA;already getting frequent (1 in 20).&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;Jeff Garzik&#xA;exMULTI, Inc.&#xA;jgarzik at exmulti.com</html></oembed>