I will look deeper at your replies above but from what I get, there is no guarantee that one block after or before an empty block are lined by the same miner. So, I could be wrong, but I guess the Phil.'s request will be satisfied if I do an analysis for stratified fees by different groups of timegaps (in seconds) of 2 consecutive blocks found by the same pool, AntPool, ie. We don't have to rely on empty blocks, I meant.
I can do it for 1-year data of AntPool, from blockchair.com with above assumption (in seconds of timestamps). After having raw results with assumption, we might move further with correct timestamps in seconds. Let's me know if it meets your request. If it goes well, I can expand observed period to 2014 (6 years in total).
But for given data from blockchair.com, I have to assume figures for seconds are always 00, that somewhat biases results.
Topic: BTC empty blocks (2009 - 5 May 2020): miners, size, daily, monthly,yearly stats - page 2. (Read 1145 times)
May 04, 2020, 08:04:03 PM
May 04, 2020, 07:55:55 PM
but the four groups above for bitmain should have for arguments sake
1-15 = 30%
16-30 = 25%
31-45 = 25%
46-60 =20%
I have no idea what the % will be or should be I put those up for a simple reason
they should be roughly the same if you use the
unknown or f2pool or btc.com or bw.com
the time ratios for all bigger pools should not be far apart.
1-15 = 30%
16-30 = 25%
31-45 = 25%
46-60 =20%
I have no idea what the % will be or should be I put those up for a simple reason
they should be roughly the same if you use the
unknown or f2pool or btc.com or bw.com
the time ratios for all bigger pools should not be far apart.
I understand exactly what you are trying to conclude, I can do that analysis if someone provides the data tranthidung or LoyceV will probably do it, i just hope tranthidung would provide me with a proper format I can use, I tried copying his format to excel and it doesn't come out as proper tables, in fact, if he understands what you want, he can do the analysis himself.
All he needs is filter Blocks that have 1 transaction (n) and every n-1 block, he will end up with 20186 blocks, half are empty blocks and the other half are the once that preceded them, he then can do;
Time difference = Timestamp of n - timestamp of n-1 , that will get him 10093 results, he then can take the average time difference for both Antpool and BTC.com and compare them against other large pools that are independent of Bitmain such as Slushpool and F2pool, Viabtc should be excluded since Bitmain is the largest shareholder of it.
May 04, 2020, 06:58:28 PM
so the ant pool stats page looks like. 1 sec block
the btc.com. shows. 6 seconds
inconsistent .
the btc.com. shows. 6 seconds
inconsistent .
I think block timestamp variance is normal, some explore to use the "mined at" timestamp, they extract that from the block itself, others use the "received" time which is the time that their node became aware of that block, and it takes time to propagate the block, so it's there is no problem with that.
The strange thing, however, with block 628,427 is that Antpool reported 2020-05-01 15:15:53 while explorers (including those oweded by Bitmain) reported 2020-05-01 18:15:47, one would think that the pool's time should be less since the pool first finds a block and THEN sends it out, I think the status on the pool pages are not accurate.
You should keep in mind that the time displaying on every other explorer is under the control of antpool anyway, since they are the once who put it, they also own btc.com so they could change the status there too, I think this is only a bad input on the pool side, they might very well be counting on the miner's time and just so happened that miner's clock was off by a few seconds, since we don't know how does the pool itself gets it's timestamps, we can't conclude anything.
but of their 2 blocks I checked
628428/628427 was 1 or 6 seconds apart
624652/651 was 31 or 34 seconds apart.
I am looking to do 2 things establish that 1,2,3,4,5,6 second variance in reporting is random and neutral or favors ant-pool
and see frequency of
1-15 second empties
16-30 second empties
31-45 second empties
46-60 second empties.
antpool is the biggest pool it should have the most empties = fact simply because it is more likely they anyone to do a 1 second block.
but the four groups above for bitmain should have for arguments sake
1-15 = 30%
16-30 = 25%
31-45 = 25%
46-60 =20%
I have no idea what the % will be or should be I put those up for a simple reason
they should be roughly the same if you use the
unknown or f2pool or btc.com or bw.com
the time ratios for all bigger pools should not be far apart.
if antpool has a really different grouping it indicates intent
ie
antpool
40
30
20
10
all other pools
25
25
25
25
would be interesting to know they simply match the others and are bigger then the others or they do something to alter the ratios. of time.
I am pretty sure they did not doctor all time stamps on the other pools if they doctored theirs this would show a big difference.
If they match more or less they could just be bigger.
the four category time ratio for empties could be helpful .
put another way they have 17% of the empties and roughly 15-18% of the network
but do their empty block time patterns match that of the other big pools empty block time patterns.
May 04, 2020, 06:45:57 PM
so the ant pool stats page looks like. 1 sec block
the btc.com. shows. 6 seconds
inconsistent .
the btc.com. shows. 6 seconds
inconsistent .
I think block timestamp variance is normal, some explore to use the "mined at" timestamp, they extract that from the block itself, others use the "received" time which is the time that their node became aware of that block, and it takes time to propagate the block, so it's there is no problem with that.
The strange thing, however, with block 628,427 is that Antpool reported 2020-05-01 15:15:53 while explorers (including those oweded by Bitmain) reported 2020-05-01 18:15:47, one would think that the pool's time should be less since the pool first finds a block and THEN sends it out, I think the status on the pool pages are not accurate.
You should keep in mind that the time displaying on every other explorer is under the control of antpool anyway, since they are the once who put it, they also own btc.com so they could change the status there too, I think this is only a bad input on the pool side, they might very well be counting on the miner's time and just so happened that miner's clock was off by a few seconds, since we don't know how does the pool itself gets it's timestamps, we can't conclude anything.
May 04, 2020, 06:03:45 PM
I think I can do something for you but I don't really get your ideas. I need a little more explanation. If I understand your request well, I think I have to get all blocks found by AntPool, includes empty ones, to have relevant data for analysis. That is not what I have now.
I know what phill wants, he wants the time between every empty block and the block the came right before it, in other words, if you have a total of 10093 blocks you will need to scrape 10093*2 blocks.
An example:
The latest empty block by Antpool is block 628428 , you will need the timestamp of that block and the timestamp of that block-1 which is block 628427.
The problem with using blockchair is that the timestamp excludes the two digits that represent seconds, this means the time difference between those two blocks will be identical either 0 or 1 minute.
What phill wants is to see if Antpool/BTC.com aka bitmian was trying to obstruct transactions by not including transactions on purpose, for that to be proven, the time between those two blocks needs to somewhat "long", anything above average probably means the empty block was mined empty on purpose IF that happens quite often.
Another problem is, you are counting on Bitmain's stupidity leaving you such a trace, I haven't done any analysis in that regards but I am sure even if bitmain took 2 minutes to find the block, they could still alter the time in the block header and submit it as if it was a 1-second block, but by all means, please go ahead and do analysis.
They could be arrogant enough to not hide it. I was looking at. their stats page and found. their last empty block was reported to be 1 second but it was reported to be 6 or 7 seconds on the explorer.
Just today there was a fee free block.
Let me pull it up.
628428 came in 1 second after 628427 according to stats page
they ripped off 3 in a row
628426 fees were 1.0282xxx
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000254d12f670a0e5f3bdf579ce961f23295b0f7f1a6a783
628427 fees were 0.9683
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000007a4504c9d9aa57510a66ae0c995da60cfbf7cee451d84
628428 fees were zero 0.0
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000008c8fa0d79f31b44e6df494d20da165bf0f0b291e13d9a
blockchain is missing the seconds
here is bitmain's stats page
https://www.antpool.com/poolStats.htm
Let me pull it up.
628428 came in 1 second after 628427 according to stats page
they ripped off 3 in a row
628426 fees were 1.0282xxx
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000254d12f670a0e5f3bdf579ce961f23295b0f7f1a6a783
628427 fees were 0.9683
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000007a4504c9d9aa57510a66ae0c995da60cfbf7cee451d84
628428 fees were zero 0.0
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000008c8fa0d79f31b44e6df494d20da165bf0f0b291e13d9a
blockchain is missing the seconds
here is bitmain's stats page
https://www.antpool.com/poolStats.htm
bitmain had a 1 second block as per their stat page
a normal block should be 600 seconds odds for the network would be high for any given block to be a 1 second block
you bring up an interesting point in saying we get 1 empty block a day.
that would be 1 in 144.
628603 came at 14:22:59
https://btc.com/000000000000000000015c0f2df9276237da03c568231b4f67d367ebdee91cd5
628602 came at 14:22:48
https://btc.com/00000000000000000003cdbcc1ed3d99bfb8c6db73a8db671a42a62624c30f7c
this is 11 seconds with zero fees
but ant pool block
628,428 came at 11:15:53
https://btc.com/00000000000000000008c8fa0d79f31b44e6df494d20da165bf0f0b291e13d9a
and block 628,427 came at 11:15:47
https://btc.com/00000000000000000007a4504c9d9aa57510a66ae0c995da60cfbf7cee451d84
this is 6 seconds or about 6/11 time to earn as the other example.
although on their stats page they claim it took 1 second.
I would love to know the time gaps for every one and how many per day.
____________________________________________________________________-
...
so the ant pool stats page looks like. 1 sec block
the btc.com. shows. 6 seconds
inconsistent .
what about their other empty blocks
find a pattern in this and see if it is a cover up or if they simply make empty blocks due to large hash rate.
the one below says 1 second yet if you search btc.com it says 6 seconds did they lie to cover up or is it a glitch
https://www.antpool.com/poolStats.htm?tp=2
this one you need to look at btc.com to get prior block time
you won't know how honest antpool is since they did not have back to back blocks but you still can see how long they claim it took them to get this block
this empty is way more shady antpool say 34 second gap if you look at time stamps
btc.com says 31 seconds apart both 31 or 34 seconds are really long time for zero transactions.
May 04, 2020, 05:31:19 PM
I think I can do something for you but I don't really get your ideas. I need a little more explanation. If I understand your request well, I think I have to get all blocks found by AntPool, includes empty ones, to have relevant data for analysis. That is not what I have now.
I know what phill wants, he wants the time between every empty block and the block the came right before it, in other words, if you have a total of 10093 blocks you will need to scrape 10093*2 blocks.
An example:
The latest empty block by Antpool is block 628428 , you will need the timestamp of that block and the timestamp of that block-1 which is block 628427.
The problem with using blockchair is that the timestamp excludes the two digits that represent seconds, this means the time difference between those two blocks will be identical either 0 or 1 minute.
What phill wants is to see if Antpool/BTC.com aka bitmian was trying to obstruct transactions by not including transactions on purpose, for that to be proven, the time between those two blocks needs to somewhat "long", anything above average probably means the empty block was mined empty on purpose IF that happens quite often.
Another problem is, you are counting on Bitmain's stupidity leaving you such a trace, I haven't done any analysis in that regards but I am sure even if bitmain took 2 minutes to find the block, they could still alter the time in the block header and submit it as if it was a 1-second block, but by all means, please go ahead and do analysis.
May 04, 2020, 09:34:46 AM
I think I can do something for you but I don't really get your ideas. I need a little more explanation. If I understand your request well, I think I have to get all blocks found by AntPool, includes empty ones, to have relevant data for analysis. That is not what I have now.
Reminder: I only have data on empty blocks, not all blocks.
Here is 30 first empty blocks and last 30 empty blocks of AntPool within the observed period.
Edit.
I have data of all blocks found by AntPool during last one year, and I will play with them tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Reminder: I only have data on empty blocks, not all blocks.
Here is 30 first empty blocks and last 30 empty blocks of AntPool within the observed period.
Code:
+------------------------------------------------+
| height minedon sizekb date |
|------------------------------------------------|
1. | 295637 2014-04-13 15:52 .201 13apr2014 |
2. | 318180 2014-08-30 02:29 .25 30aug2014 |
3. | 318202 2014-08-30 06:16 .25 30aug2014 |
4. | 319252 2014-09-05 17:06 .25 05sep2014 |
5. | 319412 2014-09-06 16:57 .25 06sep2014 |
|------------------------------------------------|
6. | 319591 2014-09-07 19:11 .25 07sep2014 |
7. | 320010 2014-09-10 15:05 .25 10sep2014 |
8. | 320724 2014-09-14 22:54 .25 14sep2014 |
9. | 320857 2014-09-15 19:31 .25 15sep2014 |
10. | 321174 2014-09-17 14:46 .25 17sep2014 |
|------------------------------------------------|
11. | 321739 2014-09-20 20:42 .25 20sep2014 |
12. | 321788 2014-09-21 02:34 .25 21sep2014 |
13. | 322407 2014-09-24 23:58 .25 24sep2014 |
14. | 322420 2014-09-25 01:14 .25 25sep2014 |
15. | 322919 2014-09-28 12:04 .25 28sep2014 |
|------------------------------------------------|
16. | 323667 2014-10-03 17:32 .25 03oct2014 |
17. | 323713 2014-10-04 01:09 .25 04oct2014 |
18. | 324519 2014-10-09 10:56 .25 09oct2014 |
19. | 324619 2014-10-10 00:02 .25 10oct2014 |
20. | 324847 2014-10-11 12:27 .25 11oct2014 |
|------------------------------------------------|
21. | 325496 2014-10-15 23:07 .25 15oct2014 |
22. | 325839 2014-10-18 05:38 .25 18oct2014 |
23. | 325994 2014-10-19 05:53 .25 19oct2014 |
24. | 326053 2014-10-19 17:25 .25 19oct2014 |
25. | 327574 2014-10-29 23:14 .248 29oct2014 |
|------------------------------------------------|
26. | 328525 2014-11-04 15:11 .248 04nov2014 |
27. | 330046 2014-11-14 23:16 .248 14nov2014 |
28. | 330108 2014-11-15 09:39 .248 15nov2014 |
29. | 332277 2014-11-30 11:22 .248 30nov2014 |
30. | 332553 2014-12-02 08:53 .206 02dec2014 |
+------------------------------------------------+
..............................................................
+------------------------------------------------+
| height minedon sizekb date |
|------------------------------------------------|
1682. | 594573 2019-09-12 20:25 .379 12sep2019 |
1683. | 594584 2019-09-12 22:26 .38 12sep2019 |
1684. | 595057 2019-09-16 00:59 .379 16sep2019 |
1685. | 595265 2019-09-17 08:45 .378 17sep2019 |
1686. | 595366 2019-09-18 01:16 .379 18sep2019 |
|------------------------------------------------|
1687. | 595920 2019-09-21 13:00 .379 21sep2019 |
1688. | 596059 2019-09-22 09:37 .379 22sep2019 |
1689. | 596245 2019-09-23 17:58 .379 23sep2019 |
1690. | 596270 2019-09-23 23:21 .379 23sep2019 |
1691. | 596525 2019-09-25 14:34 .379 25sep2019 |
|------------------------------------------------|
1692. | 596588 2019-09-25 23:25 .378 25sep2019 |
1693. | 597126 2019-09-29 13:58 .379 29sep2019 |
1694. | 597980 2019-10-05 10:27 .38 05oct2019 |
1695. | 598289 2019-10-07 11:58 .38 07oct2019 |
1696. | 598356 2019-10-07 23:11 .38 07oct2019 |
|------------------------------------------------|
1697. | 598411 2019-10-08 06:20 .38 08oct2019 |
1698. | 599327 2019-10-14 11:52 .378 14oct2019 |
1699. | 600871 2019-10-24 15:37 .378 24oct2019 |
1700. | 602493 2019-11-05 19:33 .38 05nov2019 |
1701. | 604106 2019-11-16 21:34 .38 16nov2019 |
|------------------------------------------------|
1702. | 604202 2019-11-17 13:05 .38 17nov2019 |
1703. | 604285 2019-11-18 01:36 .379 18nov2019 |
1704. | 605320 2019-11-25 06:17 .38 25nov2019 |
1705. | 607190 2019-12-08 07:32 .38 08dec2019 |
1706. | 614346 2020-01-24 15:59 .38 24jan2020 |
|------------------------------------------------|
1707. | 618512 2020-02-22 13:31 .38 22feb2020 |
1708. | 618861 2020-02-25 00:52 .38 25feb2020 |
1709. | 620233 2020-03-05 00:33 .38 05mar2020 |
1710. | 623149 2020-03-27 08:45 .38 27mar2020 |
1711. | 624652 2020-04-06 09:15 .379 06apr2020 |
|------------------------------------------------|
1712. | 628428 2020-05-01 15:15 .379 01may2020 |
+------------------------------------------------+
Edit.
I have data of all blocks found by AntPool during last one year, and I will play with them tomorrow. Stay tuned.
May 04, 2020, 09:20:59 AM
Can you break down the times of the antpool empties
even if it is basic time in sections
blocks 1-15 seconds
blocks 16-30 seconds
blocks 31-45 seconds
blocks 46-60 sections
blocks over 60 seconds
they have 1712 empties
one reason is they are a huge pool so they will make really fast blocks
1 second to 15 second blocks will have really low fees.
blocks over 60 seconds should not be empty.
I am interested in how many empty blocks of the 1712 are over 15 seconds vs under 15 seconds.
May 04, 2020, 03:49:23 AM
Reminder
After the abstract section, please see my updates since the following post
ABSTRACT updated on 5May2020
This below section is for old version of OP.
The idea comes from mikeywith and his analysis Bitcoin's Empty Blocks Analaysis.
I simply published the thread and will write a summary for it later.
Data source
Data mining link
Observed period:
Yearly distributions
In frequency and percentage
Monthly distributions
Daily distributions
Stats for daily here is a little bit biased and I need to correct them later. Because for now, stats are for non-zero dates. Only days have empty blocks are included in the dataset. I will do some more steps to includes days with zero-empty block and update stats for this part later.
Size
There are some outliers in size, I don't know reasons behind.
Miners
Miners found less than 8 empty blocks are all classified as <= 8 blocks found. If we exclude 'Unknown', the AntPool is the biggest one.
After the abstract section, please see my updates since the following post
ABSTRACT updated on 5May2020
- Period: 3Jan2009 - 5may2020
- 88894 empty blocks in the history of Bitcoin network
- The first 2 years (2009 - 2010) account for 88.6% of total empty blocks so far. See yearly stats
- 84218 (94.7%) of empty blocks were found by 'Unknown' miners.
- After excluding 'Unknown' miners, AntPool and F2Pool are the two biggest ones which found 36.6% and 21.3% of the rest of empty blocks.
- About percent of empty blocks which come after <1 minute compare to timestamp of one-block-before blocks: AntPool (72.2%) and F2Pool (71.4%). See details
- First empty blocks of 2 biggest pool: AntPool (13 Apr 2014), F2Pool (27 May 2013)
This below section is for old version of OP.
The idea comes from mikeywith and his analysis Bitcoin's Empty Blocks Analaysis.
I simply published the thread and will write a summary for it later.
Data source
Data mining link
- https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/blocks?q=time(2020-04-02%2010:19:32..2020-05-03%2010:19:32),transaction_count(1)#f=time,guessed_miner,transaction_count,size
- time(2020-05-02%2010:19:32..2020-05-03%2010:19:32): You can choose the time window you want to search empty blocks.
- If you need height, let's choose it manually from the General section at the bottom.
Observed period:
- 2011-01-01 00:05 (height #100410) to 2020-05-01 15:15 (height #628428)
Yearly distributions
Code:
+---------------------------------------+
| year emptyblock_t tempty pempty |
|---------------------------------------|
1. | 2011 3585 10093 35.5 |
2. | 2015 1701 10093 16.9 |
3. | 2012 1526 10093 15.1 |
4. | 2016 977 10093 9.7 |
5. | 2014 547 10093 5.4 |
|---------------------------------------|
6. | 2017 528 10093 5.2 |
7. | 2018 438 10093 4.3 |
8. | 2013 420 10093 4.2 |
9. | 2019 314 10093 3.1 |
10. | 2020 57 10093 .6 |
+---------------------------------------+
In frequency and percentage
Monthly distributions
Code:
+------------------------+
| month emptyblock_t |
|------------------------|
1. | 2011m1 1137 |
2. | 2011m2 831 |
3. | 2011m3 325 |
4. | 2011m4 291 |
5. | 2011m5 302 |
|------------------------|
6. | 2011m6 103 |
7. | 2011m7 91 |
8. | 2011m8 83 |
9. | 2011m9 93 |
10. | 2011m10 77 |
|------------------------|
11. | 2011m11 115 |
12. | 2011m12 137 |
13. | 2012m1 146 |
14. | 2012m2 107 |
15. | 2012m3 600 |
|------------------------|
16. | 2012m4 117 |
17. | 2012m5 82 |
18. | 2012m6 73 |
19. | 2012m7 85 |
20. | 2012m8 83 |
|------------------------|
21. | 2012m9 45 |
22. | 2012m10 75 |
23. | 2012m11 71 |
24. | 2012m12 42 |
25. | 2013m1 39 |
|------------------------|
26. | 2013m2 44 |
27. | 2013m3 45 |
28. | 2013m4 27 |
29. | 2013m5 50 |
30. | 2013m6 21 |
|------------------------|
31. | 2013m7 32 |
32. | 2013m8 37 |
33. | 2013m9 15 |
34. | 2013m10 32 |
35. | 2013m11 37 |
|------------------------|
36. | 2013m12 41 |
37. | 2014m1 42 |
38. | 2014m2 42 |
39. | 2014m3 39 |
40. | 2014m4 51 |
|------------------------|
41. | 2014m5 42 |
42. | 2014m6 35 |
43. | 2014m7 42 |
44. | 2014m8 54 |
45. | 2014m9 51 |
|------------------------|
46. | 2014m10 51 |
47. | 2014m11 36 |
48. | 2014m12 62 |
49. | 2015m1 65 |
50. | 2015m2 60 |
|------------------------|
51. | 2015m3 75 |
52. | 2015m4 61 |
53. | 2015m5 127 |
54. | 2015m6 119 |
55. | 2015m7 218 |
|------------------------|
56. | 2015m8 187 |
57. | 2015m9 187 |
58. | 2015m10 177 |
59. | 2015m11 232 |
60. | 2015m12 193 |
|------------------------|
61. | 2016m1 189 |
62. | 2016m2 192 |
63. | 2016m3 170 |
64. | 2016m4 108 |
65. | 2016m5 48 |
|------------------------|
66. | 2016m6 40 |
67. | 2016m7 31 |
68. | 2016m8 52 |
69. | 2016m9 43 |
70. | 2016m10 35 |
|------------------------|
71. | 2016m11 35 |
72. | 2016m12 34 |
73. | 2017m1 46 |
74. | 2017m2 54 |
75. | 2017m3 47 |
|------------------------|
76. | 2017m4 57 |
77. | 2017m5 75 |
78. | 2017m6 37 |
79. | 2017m7 42 |
80. | 2017m8 36 |
|------------------------|
81. | 2017m9 26 |
82. | 2017m10 33 |
83. | 2017m11 35 |
84. | 2017m12 40 |
85. | 2018m1 44 |
|------------------------|
86. | 2018m2 34 |
87. | 2018m3 23 |
88. | 2018m4 28 |
89. | 2018m5 28 |
90. | 2018m6 29 |
|------------------------|
91. | 2018m7 40 |
92. | 2018m8 39 |
93. | 2018m9 74 |
94. | 2018m10 51 |
95. | 2018m11 25 |
|------------------------|
96. | 2018m12 23 |
97. | 2019m1 47 |
98. | 2019m2 42 |
99. | 2019m3 32 |
100. | 2019m4 19 |
|------------------------|
101. | 2019m5 36 |
102. | 2019m6 18 |
103. | 2019m7 22 |
104. | 2019m8 21 |
105. | 2019m9 26 |
|------------------------|
106. | 2019m10 17 |
107. | 2019m11 15 |
108. | 2019m12 19 |
109. | 2020m1 14 |
110. | 2020m2 14 |
|------------------------|
111. | 2020m3 14 |
112. | 2020m4 14 |
113. | 2020m5 1 |
+------------------------+
Code:
variable | N mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
emptyblock_t | 113.0 89.3 146.1 44.0 34.0 83.0 1.0 1137.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily distributions
Code:
Summary for variables: emptyblock_t
by categories of: year
year | N mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max
----------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 | 351.0 10.2 13.5 5.0 3.0 11.0 1.0 80.0
2012 | 333.0 4.6 5.7 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 31.0
2013 | 237.0 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.0
2014 | 282.0 1.9 1.1 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 6.0
2015 | 348.0 4.9 3.0 4.0 2.5 7.0 1.0 19.0
2016 | 291.0 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 14.0
2017 | 271.0 1.9 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 6.0
2018 | 242.0 1.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 9.0
2019 | 192.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 7.0
2020 | 45.0 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0
----------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total | 2592.0 3.9 6.3 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 80.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size
There are some outliers in size, I don't know reasons behind.
Code:
Summary for variables: sizekb
by categories of: year
year | N mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 | 3585.000 0.232 0.152 0.215 0.215 0.216 0.210 3.007
2012 | 1526.000 0.268 0.532 0.217 0.216 0.223 0.188 7.494
2013 | 420.000 0.543 1.683 0.241 0.223 0.248 0.176 16.829
2014 | 547.000 0.576 2.099 0.250 0.241 0.255 0.183 17.748
2015 | 1701.000 0.268 0.620 0.209 0.208 0.252 0.183 10.642
2016 | 977.000 0.316 0.628 0.210 0.208 0.229 0.189 7.437
2017 | 528.000 0.264 0.194 0.259 0.238 0.266 0.191 4.422
2018 | 438.000 0.279 0.028 0.285 0.258 0.288 0.209 0.349
2019 | 314.000 0.310 0.051 0.288 0.278 0.366 0.196 0.384
2020 | 57.000 0.336 0.040 0.340 0.296 0.366 0.244 0.380
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total | 10093.000 0.290 0.721 0.216 0.215 0.241 0.176 17.748
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miners
Miners found less than 8 empty blocks are all classified as <= 8 blocks found. If we exclude 'Unknown', the AntPool is the biggest one.
Code:
+----------------------------------------------------+
| miner emptyblock_t tempty pempty |
|----------------------------------------------------|
1. | Unknown 5386 10093 53.4 |
2. | AntPool 1712 10093 17 |
3. | F2Pool 998 10093 9.9 |
4. | BTC.com 365 10093 3.6 |
5. | BW.COM 319 10093 3.2 |
|----------------------------------------------------|
6. | Eligius 296 10093 2.9 |
7. | KnCMiner 220 10093 2.2 |
8. | SlushPool 199 10093 2 |
9. | BitMinter 131 10093 1.3 |
10. | BTCC Pool 101 10093 1 |
|----------------------------------------------------|
11. | BTC.TOP 82 10093 .8 |
12. | Bixin 71 10093 .7 |
13. | <= 8 blocks found 56 10093 .6 |
14. | ViaBTC 50 10093 .5 |
15. | EclipseMC 44 10093 .4 |
|----------------------------------------------------|
16. | 58COIN 27 10093 .3 |
17. | Huobi 23 10093 .2 |
18. | GoGreenLight 13 10093 .1 |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Jump to: