A block with only a single transaction?

[bytemaster]

This is why my new proposal is required.  While this may be seen as normal in the bitcoin world, it is also identical to a DOS attack and slows down transaction confirmation times.

You are incorrect.

My new proposal is a Proof of Minimal Work rather than proof of maximum work and relies upon miners including 90% of the 'expected' transactions in each block and only allowing for a minimal variance based upon network propagation delay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=253120.msg2693133#msg2693133

Good luck with that.

A block with no transaction being generated on a network with viable transactions represents a 10 minute DOS.

I am trying to innovate here and one would think that finding a way to keep security, enhance decentralization, and reduce power consumption all at the same time would at least merit more meaningful discussion.   

[1715477096]

1715477096

[1715477096]

1715477096

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You have zero grasp of how Bitcoin works. It is not a '10 minute dos' because it absolutely affects nothing.

I just took a look in your thread. Are you seriously thinking a block takes 10 minutes? That's not how it works.

Thank you for wasting my time. With all due respect, (attempt to) learn what you are talking about.

[theymos]

If we went back in time and sabotaged this miner so that he didn't get a block, things would be exactly the same in the short-term. The blocks before and after this block would be created at the same times as they were here. Unconfirmed transactions wouldn't get confirmed any faster. Obviously it'd be even better if he accepted transactions instead of ignoring them, but he's not actually preventing transactions from being confirmed.

[DannyHamilton]

Obviously it'd be even better if he accepted transactions instead of ignoring them, but he's not actually preventing transactions from being confirmed.

We can't even know that for certain.

If he had transactions in the block he was working on, it is entirely possible that he wouldn't have found a nonce solution before someone else (since he'd be searching for a nonce in an entirely different block with an entirely different SHA-256 hash).

So, it is entirely possible that his creation of a block without any transactions has increased the speed of confirmations.  How can we predict whether the network would have found a block sooner than they have if they were all working on a different set of blocks?

[CIYAM]

The only concern with single tx blocks would be if they were a part of a huge >50% attack where *all* new blocks appearing had only the "coinbase" tx (as this would stop other tx's from getting processed).