On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:51:09 AM Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Luke-Jr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:33:12 PM Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Comments? It wouldn't be a problem if these no-TX blocks were not > >> already getting frequent (1 in 20). > > > > FWIW, based on statistics for Eligius's past 100 blocks, it seems 10% (1 > > in 10) of 1-txn blocks is not actually unreasonable. This also means > > these 1-txn mined blocks are not necessarily harming Bitcoin > > intentionally. Anyone care to figure out the math for how fast miners > > need to finish processing transactions to reduce the number of 1txn > > blocks? > > Look at the time since last block, and correlate with the number of > non-spam TX's in the memory pool at the time. It is obvious which > ones are quick blocks (<60 seconds since last block, no big deal) and > which ones are the lazy miners (> 120 seconds since last block).
Block times are not accurate enough for that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
