Congrats on getting it solved

I welcome you to perform those calculations.  I'm simply providing the data.  I've also never made the conclusion you came to:
There is nothing in this thread stating empty block mining is detrimental due to forking.  In fact, I've never even tied the two together.

I'm not sure what agenda you think I may have, other than to report the numbers.

Sure, you can alter the client code to block addresses, but you can't just throw some addresses in a configuration file.  As you've quoted, it was towards a specific release (Gentoo) and required changes to the underlying core code.  I agree that somebody, if motivated enough, could in fact change the code to block kano's address; however, there are a whole lot of somebodies that would have to do the same thing to have a noticeable effect.

I can't believe you're not going to let me create a whole bunch of alt accounts and post here to increase my chances!!!  That's so unfair!!!  /sarcasm.

Well, blockchain.info does more than provide information about blocks... it's also an online wallet service.  So, I can understand the logic behind throwing a DDoS at them for that reason.

AntPool has been under attack for a while now.

As in the three of them together, or each independently opened up their own facility?  Any place I can read about it?  Is it new next-gen gear?  Enquiring minds want to know!

You can try blocktrail.com or blockr.io as substitutes for blockchain.info.

I'm unaware of any settings you can configure to allow you to block transactions from specific BTC addresses.  Even *if* one pool decided it wanted nothing to do with kano and figured out a way to block transactions from him, there are plenty of other pools out there mining blocks who would be happy to include it.

Put away the tin foil hats, kids .

So you were the one who was competing for the hash.  I wondered why my rental kept stopping .  Unfortunately, I didn't hit a block with it, either.

I don't think it was ever claimed that forking was exclusively caused by SPV mining.  You made that statement.  However, what is true is that SPV mining can and has caused forks.

Just for fun, I re-ran things again to see where we are.  As of block 387696:

AntPool 7.61% of their blocks are empty
BW.com 4.14%
f2pool 3.55%
KnC 3.23%
Eligius 2.3%

Hopefully the price continues to rise as difficulty does.

+14.8 = jonnybravo0311

Nepaluz, unfortunately you're probably correct about there being a tipping point where pools will realize that mining empty blocks is not beneficial for them.  Right now, the generation of 25BTC far outweighs any transaction fees included in a block.  Honestly, I don't understand why AntPool would ever mine an empty block, since they keep the transaction fees for themselves.  It would behoove them to stuff as many large-fee transactions as they could into their blocks.  F2Pool charges 4%, so until the transaction fees are greater than 1BTC per block, or 0.5BTC per block after the halving, they've got absolutely no incentive to put transactions in their blocks.

Where I will disagree with you, however, is in your assertion that SPV mining is not detrimental.  SPV mining has previously caused forks in the blockchain.  The very process itself is unstable, using only header information instead of verifying the actual blocks.

Dead mining means you are pointing mining software to a pool, but you are not doing any work.  Your miner does nothing but listen for block changes.

Easy... do you have actual mining hardware pointed to the pool?  Are you sending out work and getting accepted shares?  If yes, then you aren't dead mining

It's pretty simple... kano has repeatedly pointed out why SPV mining is bad for Bitcoin.  I won't rehash those points, you can dig through multiple posts to find both sides of the argument.  Well, kano started a thread about it and posted some BTC addresses and IP addresses that have been "dead mining" on his pool.  Apparently they were f2pool, and macbook-air took exception to that information being posted.

Hi barrysty1e,

Thanks for the reply.  As the thread title states, I'm running NOMP/MPOS.  NOMP is the stratum implementation, MPOS is the front end.

I took psycodad's advice and upped my thread count, which seemed to have had some effect; however, it has not solved the problem completely.  I've also taken some steps to use better memory allocation (apparently there's an issue with fragmentation and glibc).  Using a better memory allocation manager like jemalloc also seems to have had an effect; however, it too has not solved the problem.

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck with doing a restart every day.  Keeps the memory manageable and things running relatively smoothly.  I've been reading through a number of mail threads and comments on github related to this issue, but so far nobody has produced a working solution.

It depends on the pool.  Some pools use code trickery to try and get work out to their miners as fast as possible.  The technique is to publish an empty block as quickly as possible, then to update it with transactions afterwards.  Well, it can happen that a miner solves the empty block.  Many pools take this approach, and the bigger the pool, the more often you'll see empty blocks.  Other pools fill up the block with as many transactions as possible an then publish the work out to miners.  These pools will never submit empty blocks because their miners are never given an empty block on which to work.

There is nothing in the bitcoin protocol that forces a block to contain transactions other than the coinbase one.  You could feasibly setup a pool that would only ever mine empty blocks.  The downside to mining empty blocks is that plenty of transactions out there will now have to wait until somebody else includes them in their blocks.  With the largest pools out there mining empty blocks, it's quite possible that you'd see a whole string of empty blocks in a row on the blockchain all the while new transactions are waiting to be confirmed.

It doesn't matter how good your CPU/GPU is.  They won't make you any BTC.  You're a few years late to the party for that approach .  If you're serious, you'll need to purchase a specialized miner.  These range from a USB stick to rack-mountable servers.  Even the worst USB stick will be better than the best GPU.

If you're going to categorize a group of people as ignorant, the least you could do is ensure your own post is not erroneous as well.

Port forwarding absolutely requires the machine on your internal network to have a static IP address.  Your publicly facing IP address is completely irrelevant when setting up a port forwarding rule.  Also, the IP address of the machine on your internal network does not necessarily start with 192.168.  Sure, that's common; however, 172.16 - 172.31 and 10.0 - 10.255 are all valid private IP addresses.

It's because of their crap pool software.  There's nothing in the protocol that disallows block creation with no transactions other than the coinbase one... so it's not a flaw in the bitcoin ecosystem.