The only concern with single tx blocks would be if they were a part of a huge >50% attack where *all* new blocks appearing had only the "coinbase" tx (as this would stop other tx's from getting processed).
Topic: A block with only a single transaction? (Read 2010 times)
Obviously it'd be even better if he accepted transactions instead of ignoring them, but he's not actually preventing transactions from being confirmed.
We can't even know that for certain.
If he had transactions in the block he was working on, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have found a nonce solution before someone else (since he'd be searching for a nonce in an entirely different block with an entirely different SHA-256 hash).
So, it is entirely possible that his creation of a block without any transactions has increased the speed of confirmations. How can we predict whether the network would have found a block sooner than they have if they were all working on a different set of blocks?
If we went back in time and sabotaged this miner so that he didn't get a block, things would be exactly the same in the short-term. The blocks before and after this block would be created at the same times as they were here. Unconfirmed transactions wouldn't get confirmed any faster. Obviously it'd be even better if he accepted transactions instead of ignoring them, but he's not actually preventing transactions from being confirmed.
You have zero grasp of how Bitcoin works. It is not a '10 minute dos' because it absolutely affects nothing.
I just took a look in your thread. Are you seriously thinking a block takes 10 minutes? That's not how it works.
Thank you for wasting my time. With all due respect, (attempt to) learn what you are talking about.
I just took a look in your thread. Are you seriously thinking a block takes 10 minutes? That's not how it works.
Thank you for wasting my time. With all due respect, (attempt to) learn what you are talking about.
This is why my new proposal is required. While this may be seen as normal in the bitcoin world, it is also identical to a DOS attack and slows down transaction confirmation times.
You are incorrect.
My new proposal is a Proof of Minimal Work rather than proof of maximum work and relies upon miners including 90% of the 'expected' transactions in each block and only allowing for a minimal variance based upon network propagation delay.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2693133
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2693133
Good luck with that.
I am trying to innovate here and one would think that finding a way to keep security, enhance decentralization, and reduce power consumption all at the same time would at least merit more meaningful discussion.
This is why my new proposal is required. While this may be seen as normal in the bitcoin world, it is also identical to a DOS attack and slows down transaction confirmation times.
You are incorrect.
My new proposal is a Proof of Minimal Work rather than proof of maximum work and relies upon miners including 90% of the 'expected' transactions in each block and only allowing for a minimal variance based upon network propagation delay.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2693133
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2693133
Good luck with that.
This is why my new proposal is required. While this may be seen as normal in the bitcoin world, it is also identical to a DOS attack and slows down transaction confirmation times.
My new proposal is a Proof of Minimal Work rather than proof of maximum work and relies upon miners including 90% of the 'expected' transactions in each block and only allowing for a minimal variance based upon network propagation delay.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2693133
My new proposal is a Proof of Minimal Work rather than proof of maximum work and relies upon miners including 90% of the 'expected' transactions in each block and only allowing for a minimal variance based upon network propagation delay.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2693133
Thats not very strange IMO
JEZUS....
The question was about HOW weird it was.......
I gave one example of HOW it could happen, who gives a shit about slowing down confirmations, that was NOT the question and is OFF topic....
It happens a LOT...., but simply checking out the connected addresses would show what is going on... IF people took the time to research around the transaction & addresses.
The question was about HOW weird it was.......
I gave one example of HOW it could happen, who gives a shit about slowing down confirmations, that was NOT the question and is OFF topic....
It happens a LOT...., but simply checking out the connected addresses would show what is going on... IF people took the time to research around the transaction & addresses.
It simply means no transactions were included in that block - it can happen!
It does slow down the confirmations eventually, but not until the next difficulty adjustment. The increase in confirmation time only lasts for 2 weeks (until the following difficulty adjustment).
It slows down unconfirmed transactions. We need to agree on what we are discussing or we'll be talking about two different things.
If you are comparing the miner mining that empty block to that exact same miner mining blocks that aren't empty, then it is very difficult to predict if the empty block slowed down the unconfirmed transactions or sped them up.
If you are comparing the miner mining that empty block to that exact same miner simply not mining at all, then it doesn't slow down unconfirmed transactions until the next difficulty adjustment. The increase in confirmation time then only lasts for 2 weeks (until the following difficulty adjustment).
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
Elgius......
They get round to paying miners and owe one guy 25 BTC
so they pack it up and feed it into thier own system to be verified.
How about Slush...They get round to paying miners and owe one guy 25 BTC
so they pack it up and feed it into thier own system to be verified.
It does build the consensus about past transactions but it slows down the confirmations of new transactions.
It does slow down the confirmations eventually, but not until the next difficulty adjustment. The increase in confirmation time only lasts for 2 weeks (until the following difficulty adjustment).
It does build the consensus about past transactions but it slows down the confirmations of new transactions.
It does slow down the confirmations eventually, but not until the next difficulty adjustment. The increase in confirmation time only lasts for 2 weeks (until the following difficulty adjustment).
Happens all the time. There is no requirement in the protocol for miners to include transactions in a block if they don't want to. It doesn't really matter since their block still adds to the consensus building of the blockchain.
It does build the consensus about past transactions but it slows down the confirmations of new transactions.It does not matter because miners will be incentivized more and more by bitcoin network transaction fees and by out of band value add fees.
Elgius......
They get round to paying miners and owe one guy 25 BTC
so they pack it up and feed it into thier own system to be verified.
They get round to paying miners and owe one guy 25 BTC
so they pack it up and feed it into thier own system to be verified.
Im not even sure.. wtf?
Dude.. Use search bar thanks.
Thats weird
It just isn't expected, but it happens.
Thats not normal..
You realize there is only one r in the name of POTUS Barack Obama.
Jump to: