Not sure but I think this happens pretty often, I've seen blocks with no transactions at all
Well, there has to be one transaction at least (the block reward).
Thanks for sharing your experience, cheers
Topic: Block #293556 has only one transaction (Read 1291 times)
Well, there has to be one transaction at least (the block reward).
Thanks for sharing your experience, cheers
Not sure but I think this happens pretty often, I've seen blocks with no transactions at all
Miners have no obligation to include transactions in their found block.
Interesting. So does that imply that if some corporation had enough hash power they could mine blocks and just bottleneck all the transactions looking to be confirmed on the network?
This is of course assuming said corporation could constantly hog 99.99% of the blocks?
Yes, that would be an 51% attack.
I was studying the last 10-20 blocks found, the last block found #293556 (at this time), has only one transaction, meaning that the only thing in the block is the block reward:
https://blockchain.info/block-index/377922/00000000000000003ac55200da6980781b0db2dd5342c3f6f85e77b1a2589e57
Never seen that before. Is this just a statistical anomaly?
https://blockchain.info/block-index/377922/00000000000000003ac55200da6980781b0db2dd5342c3f6f85e77b1a2589e57
Never seen that before. Is this just a statistical anomaly?
it's quantum-mining. i did it once in 2009-2010 and nearly committed suicide over it (with i was joking
) 
IIRC, Eligius' GBT based servers send a blank block template when a new block is found on the network, then later sends a "complete" template that includes transactions. This is due to bandwidth needed to push out a full GBT block, so in order to make sure miners aren't wasting work on old blocks, they push out a very quick one then fill it in later.
If a miner doesn't move to the newer block template, or if they find a solution before a filled in template is provided, a coinbase-only block would be the result.
I know a few other pools have done similar things in order to speed up long polls as much as possible, though I don't know how many still do this. It's extremely rare for a pools memory pool to be completely empty when a new block hits the network.
If a miner doesn't move to the newer block template, or if they find a solution before a filled in template is provided, a coinbase-only block would be the result.
I know a few other pools have done similar things in order to speed up long polls as much as possible, though I don't know how many still do this. It's extremely rare for a pools memory pool to be completely empty when a new block hits the network.
Miners have no obligation to include transactions in their found block.
Interesting. So does that imply that if some corporation had enough hash power they could mine blocks and just bottleneck all the transactions looking to be confirmed on the network?
This is of course assuming said corporation could constantly hog 99.99% of the blocks?
But in that case they could change the source that is being used as the rules of the protocol.
I guess I answered my own question. lol
It happens all the time. Quite often seen a 1 transaction block go past.
Alright, thanks for the info. Always nice to learn something new
Cheers!
Cheers!
@Buffer Overflow have you seen that before, except for block #1 and in the early days?
Yes lots of times.
It was found by Eligius so I expected that as much tx fee would be included.
Is this just because there was no pending transactions (with decent tx fee) when the block was found?
@Buffer Overflow have you seen that before, except for block #1 and in the early days?
Is this just because there was no pending transactions (with decent tx fee) when the block was found?
@Buffer Overflow have you seen that before, except for block #1 and in the early days?
Miners have no obligation to include transactions in their found block.
I was studying the last 10-20 blocks found, the last block found #293556 (at this time), has only one transaction, meaning that the only thing in the block is the block reward:
https://blockchain.info/block-index/377922/00000000000000003ac55200da6980781b0db2dd5342c3f6f85e77b1a2589e57
Never seen that before. Is this just a statistical anomaly?
https://blockchain.info/block-index/377922/00000000000000003ac55200da6980781b0db2dd5342c3f6f85e77b1a2589e57
Never seen that before. Is this just a statistical anomaly?
Jump to: