|
Title: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: jl2012 on July 01, 2015, 04:13:43 AM https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000010ef3011e77078522451782c639ea5e22492e086ca9089c3
This block has 4509 tx with exactly 1,000,000 bytes, both are new record. It is also the only block with more than 4000 tx Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: el kaka22 on July 01, 2015, 04:24:54 AM It is because the stress test is in progress and block 363266 is an empty block, making many tx stuck there... BTW today will be a memorable day because of this record, stating that bitcoin is at a new level!
Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: unamis76 on July 01, 2015, 02:24:51 PM Each and every day, new reminders that block size is indeed an issue, and that it must be solved in near future with raising the blocksize...
Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: trout on July 01, 2015, 03:17:51 PM it's a weird block.
there are a lot of 0 fee transactions, like this one (https://blockchain.info/tx/b43b07393b744b84f6e727fb83c67e33c59d18558495b59bfcf70375c7c23307) which in addition are shown as Doublespends by blockchain.info why did F2Pool chose to mine these? may be someone found a bug in f2pool and is using it to doublespend, that is, to cancel some other (unconfirmed) transactions they are sending at the same time Just a wild guess. Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: Mikestang on July 01, 2015, 04:39:27 PM Each and every day, new reminders that block size is indeed an issue, and that it must be solved in near future with raising the blocksize... And more examples of why empty blocks are bad for the network and provide no worth. Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: amaclin on July 02, 2015, 08:18:57 AM why did F2Pool chose to mine these? f2pool mines some non-standard transactions and the outputs to compromised addresses for themselvesTitle: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: InceptionCoin on July 02, 2015, 09:38:04 AM Each and every day, new reminders that block size is indeed an issue, and that it must be solved in near future with raising the blocksize... And more examples of why empty blocks are bad for the network and provide no worth. Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: BTSE on July 02, 2015, 11:55:56 AM why did F2Pool chose to mine these? f2pool mines some non-standard transactions and the outputs to compromised addresses for themselvesf2pool does indeed mine some non-standard transactions, but this does not lead to them 'comrpomising' any addresses or outputs. Non-standard transactions are those that bitcoin core rejects for being spammy, or for using restricted opcodes that are deemed a 'security risk'. (I never understood this logic). Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: lontivero on July 03, 2015, 04:38:32 AM Each and every day, new reminders that block size is indeed an issue, and that it must be solved in near future with raising the blocksize... And more examples of why empty blocks are bad for the network and provide no worth. It isn't about liberty, it is about following the protocol and one day empty blocks could being disallowed by consensus. If one of the biggest miners decides to mine only empty blocks, it could delay transactions and even when it is clear miners don't want to mishandle the network, it could happen. Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: ¡ on July 03, 2015, 06:14:13 AM f2pool does indeed mine some non-standard transactions, but this does not lead to them 'comrpomising' any addresses or outputs. Non-standard transactions are those that bitcoin core rejects for being spammy, or for using restricted opcodes that are deemed a 'security risk'. (I never understood this logic). Some of the Bitcoin opcodes were genuinely dangerous and were permanently disabled to prevent the network imploding. The way they were implemented meant you could have made scripts that are impossible for anybody to verify, and any node that tried would have crashed out due to not having yottabytes of memory. There is no possibility of them coming back, but new opcodes that have the same function could be created in the future if really necessary. The scripting standardness tests are from pretty early on, but they are still around today because ultimately the scripting language isn't as useful as anybody would have liked. You can make annoying scripts and scripts that break reimplementations in spectacular ways, but very little in the way of useful ones outside of the standard set. A majority of the opcodes have never once been used in any script in the 5+ year history of Bitcoin transactions, and nobody seems to be campaigning for them to be freely relayed again. It isn't about liberty, it is about following the protocol and one day empty blocks could being disallowed by consensus. If one of the biggest miners decides to mine only empty blocks, it could delay transactions and even when it is clear miners don't want to mishandle the network, it could happen. That will not, and can not ever become a consensus rule. If you try to make 0 transaction blocks invalid, the miner will just pack in junk to make up the limit. It is also completely plausible that there will be times of zero transaction volume which you need to contend with. Title: Re: Record breaking block: 363270 Post by: lontivero on July 03, 2015, 06:35:41 AM Quote It isn't about liberty, it is about following the protocol and one day empty blocks could being disallowed by consensus. If one of the biggest miners decides to mine only empty blocks, it could delay transactions and even when it is clear miners don't want to mishandle the network, it could happen. That will not, and can not ever become a consensus rule. If you try to make 0 transaction blocks invalid, the miner will just pack in junk to make up the limit. It is also completely plausible that there will be times of zero transaction volume which you need to contend with. Yes, that's right, miners could pack junk. +1 |