Correct. But between when a block has been mined and when it has been transferred and processed, other miners do not know which transactions in their mempool were included in that block and thus do not know which transactions are safe to start mining on. So they mine empty while they're waiting.

If you look at the timings, most empty blocks come very quickly after the previous blocks for this reason.

I think he means "valid to include in the next block", because they don't (yet) know which ones were included in the header they are building on.

The reason there are one transaction blocks is that the miners don't know which transactions which are in the mempool are valid. The minute you add a minimum requirement, miners will just fill it with dummy transactions they know to be valid but are not in the mempool. You gain nothing but waste space.

I checked before posting, checked again now because of your comment and it is not listed there anyone can check https://www.bitcoin.com/choose-your-wallet?category=web

The "they" I refered to is the address you posted.  I assume they, the address controller, mined those coins.

No, but the converse can happen.  If someone know who controls and address and that address generates fresh coins it's just a matter of 1 + 1.

I didn't mean to imply that I could tell you anything about any coin history, I'm just a hobby miner, but people who know how to trace stuff can figure things out.

To try and answer your question, I would assume that they mined the coins as that seems to me to be the only way to receive them with no prior inputs, and that was the point of my post above.

You missing the point I think. The same you can ask for any other address. Its not about me or you, or random person on the street knowing this. This is about about blockchain analytic companies doint this, such as elliptic, about a merchant who knows your identity behind an address by virtue of transacting with them, or exchanges or surveillance organizations v knowing  this information. And all this information can be used, at worst case, for blacklisting your bitcoins, if they deem bitcoins to dirty.

Andreas Antonopoulos explains that to avoid this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

And blacklisting is already happening, e.g.,
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mea6b/bitpay_is_blacklisting_certain_bitcoins_rejecting

See, I would think just the opposite.  With no history it is much simpler to trace the coin to it's origin address and see who mined it.

That is definitely wrong. It shouldn't average more than 1-5%, maybe with spikes up higher, but 40% is crazy unless you built it in test mode.

Hmm... just a sec... checking....

OK, back. 8. I'm guessing that's a default. I've not modified that part of bitcoin.conf.

As long as we're nitpicking my particular node, it may be worth pointing out that I am running it over Tor.

Thanks for helping to keep the price high until I can get my old coins out of cold storage. The wallet.dat file is incompatible with the new version so I am having a difficult time accessing them. Any ideas?

bitcoin-qt -upgradewallet

But the [apparent] futility [and thanklessness] of the task is a reward in itself! Think Sisyphus. Think A Hunger Artist. Think late-1800s dandy reading flowery romantic poesy to a drunk in the gutter

I like that it seems we are making slow but steady progress in reaching a consensus, my question is why is gavin advocating for a hard fork to do this when soft fork should be enough?

Thanks for laying out a road-map, Greg.

I'll need to think about it some more, but just a couple of initial
reactions:

Why segwitness as a soft fork? Stuffing the segwitness merkle tree in the
coinbase is messy and will just complicate consensus-critical code (as
opposed to making the right side of the merkle tree in block.version=5
blocks the segwitness data).

It will also make any segwitness fraud proofs significantly larger (merkle
path versus merkle path to coinbase transactions, plus ENTIRE coinbase
transaction, which might be quite large, plus merkle path up to root).


We also need to fix the O(n^2) sighash problem as an additional BIP for ANY
blocksize increase. That also argues for a hard fork-- it is much easier to
fix it correctly and simplify the consensus code than to continue to apply
band-aid fixes on top of something fundamentally broken.


Segwitness will require a hard or soft-fork rollout, then a significant
fraction of the transaction-producing wallets to upgrade and start
supporting segwitness-style transactions. I think it will be much quicker
than the P2SH rollout, because the biggest transaction producers have a
strong motivation to lower their fees, and it won't require a new type of
bitcoin address to fund wallets. But it still feels like it'll be six
months to a year at the earliest before any relief from the current
problems we're seeing from blocks filling up.

Segwitness will make the current bottleneck (block propagation) a little
worse in the short term, because of the extra fraud-proof data. Benefits
well worth the costs.

------------------

I think a barrier to quickly getting consensus might be a fundamental
difference of opinion on this:
"Even without them I believe we’ll be in an acceptable position with
respect to capacity in the near term"

The heaviest users of the Bitcoin network (businesses who generate tens of
thousands of transactions per day on behalf of their customers) would
strongly disgree; the current state of affairs is NOT acceptable to them.
--
--
Gavin Andresen

Snark aside, that line is, in my opinion, our take-home message so far.

By itself, it doesn't exclude the possibility that Wright is Satoshi, but it does add additional requirements on what counts as proof -- and what we've seen so far doesn't constitute that, imo.

Must have been a long time ago? GBT should perform as well as stratum now.

2,099,999,997,690,000... an insane number. Sorry if I seemed stupid it was a curious question and I do find that currently I need a minimum spend before one can send coins with the current wallet client... Id bet widespread adoption would change the whole dynamic of transaction fees and the like? Especially if people were not owning whole bitcoins, the transaction fee would become more noticeable and would need to be adjusted? Sorry if I seem dumb on this front its been a curious thing for me its a psychological thing about having 1 complete bitcoin, or is that just the way the wallet reads it out as in 1.xxxxxxxxxx so its kinda deceiving... Everyone only having 0.xxxxxxxxx would seem odd

Now you've explained that to be, so the actual form of the currency is measured in the smallest units, not the 'BTC' measurement which kinda was psychologically deceiving!

Jacob

Been going back in and out of trying to figure this out for about 2 days now..

--stratum-port just flat out doesnt work for me.

I can start bfgminer with the setting and port, but i just get the SSM: no 2d upstream error continuously scrolling.  I can telnet to the stratum port and submit commands which do show up in the miners monitor screen, but the Antminers dont see it as a stratum pool that is alive.


I can probably avoid having to do this all together if I could get BFGminer working on the OpenWRT of the Antminer S1

Well I am just gonna do regular mining and declare mining solo with network gear as something only the bitcoin gods are capable of. I have months of research and work time trying to get this going and haven't ever managed it.
Fortunately I run my miners in place of the baseboard heaters here so my goals ar accomplished so far. Not paying for heat you might say.

I appreciate the words offered here but none of it works for me.

Later.

If I change the port to 3333 it just crashes bfgminer and it happens fast enough I can't catch the error. I am not exactly a novice at mining and have done plenty of solo with gpu and usb stuff. This network device setup has me beaten.