Read this:-
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/11307/why-did-this-empty-transaction-block-get-awarded-25-bitcoins
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/24098/why-there-are-blocks-with-single-transaction-in-blockchain
Bitcointalk Discussion thread over here:-
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/empty-blocks-1085800
Topic: Empty transaction blocks - page 2. (Read 2460 times)
I've read some long discussions about the pros and cons of miner's publishing zero transaction blocks (as 'some' are doing now).
The TL;DR is that:
Let's say the blocksize was 10MB and it took 10 minutes to solve a block. Miners would work on solving it but a large zero-miner would quickly solve a zero sized block. They would them publish it to their "large miner friends" who would start solving a next block.
Whoever solved the 10MB block would likely get their block orphaned if the empty block + next block was published immediately after the block was solved/broadcast. And whoever was working on the longer chain would be already working on the next empty block + next block.
In a way, publishing empty blocks seems to create an artificial cap on blocksize, does it not? As the blocksize gets larger and it takes longer to solve blocks, publishing empty transactions can cause more and more transactions to be orphaned.
Additionally, some (many?) people support miners publishing empty blocks. There seems some back and forth whether this should be allowed at all. As it is part of the protocol, disallowing it would seem about impossible at this point in time.
Doesn't this basically put a blocksize limit in the hands of the large miners? And isn't this just a way for the largest miners to gain an advantage over the others? Or is there some reason this is a "good thing"?
The TL;DR is that:
Let's say the blocksize was 10MB and it took 10 minutes to solve a block. Miners would work on solving it but a large zero-miner would quickly solve a zero sized block. They would them publish it to their "large miner friends" who would start solving a next block.
Whoever solved the 10MB block would likely get their block orphaned if the empty block + next block was published immediately after the block was solved/broadcast. And whoever was working on the longer chain would be already working on the next empty block + next block.
In a way, publishing empty blocks seems to create an artificial cap on blocksize, does it not? As the blocksize gets larger and it takes longer to solve blocks, publishing empty transactions can cause more and more transactions to be orphaned.
Additionally, some (many?) people support miners publishing empty blocks. There seems some back and forth whether this should be allowed at all. As it is part of the protocol, disallowing it would seem about impossible at this point in time.
Doesn't this basically put a blocksize limit in the hands of the large miners? And isn't this just a way for the largest miners to gain an advantage over the others? Or is there some reason this is a "good thing"?
Jump to: