Block #503198 what is it ?

[btctousd81]

i am parsing blockchain and came to this strange block.

Block #503198


ref: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000011b4db68e2f052572fdfd93c8293257b7727429f5418b9

and lots of questions came to mind.

why this block has only 1 tx ?
its not like beginning days of bitcoin when only 1 tx used to be there in a block, there are backlog of 100k+ tx and why this block only has 1 tx ?

all previous and later blocks has 1k+ tx in them, then why is this block empty ?

what am i missing here ?

thanks for your time.

[1713896340]

1713896340

[1713896340]

1713896340

[PEG-TOKEN]

The protocol leaves it up to the miner to decide which transactions to include in a block. There is no requirement for them to include any transactions at all, other than the "coinbase" transaction which specifies where to send the block reward.

However, most transactions have fees attached, which the miner can collect only by including those transactions in the block. So this gives the miner an incentive to include transactions if there are any outstanding.

Note that a block with no transactions does still contribute to the security of the currency: it increases the amount of hashing that an attacker would need to do to reverse a transaction recorded in a previous block.

(They would have to produce a chain showing more work than the current one, including the work proved by the zero-transaction block.)

[btctousd81]

The protocol leaves it up to the miner to decide which transactions to include in a block. There is no requirement for them to include any transactions at all, other than the "coinbase" transaction which specifies where to send the block reward.

However, most transactions have fees attached, which the miner can collect only by including those transactions in the block. So this gives the miner an incentive to include transactions if there are any outstanding.

Note that a block with no transactions does still contribute to the security of the currency: it increases the amount of hashing that an attacker would need to do to reverse a transaction recorded in a previous block.

(They would have to produce a chain showing more work than the current one, including the work proved by the zero-transaction block.)

whats the use of such block ? if they are not helping network to reduce the unconfirmed tx ? they are only making it hard to reverse the tx or providing their hashpower.

so what needs to be done to mine such block ? what do you tell your miner ? not to include any tx .

what happens when more people start to do same thing ., and not include transactions in block ?

i gotta read more stuff now, all this time i missed it, block can be empty too, then what is block made of ? how is the coinbase tx gets created/generated.

dang.

edit:

looks likr consensus is what i need to look into.

block = coinbase tx + regular tx (optional)

coinbase tx gives block reward
regular tx gives tx fees.




thanks .

[Carlton Banks]

Some miners have mining code that works like this:

If they solve a block very quickly after the previous block N (i.e. only a few seconds later), then they simply relay an empty block N + 1 (there's only one transaction because a single transaction is the minimum required to pay the block reward to their mining address).

The rationale is that if they wait for their mempool to re-sort the remaining transactions, they risk some other miner solving block N + 1 during the time it takes to choose the transactions to include in their solution for block N + 1. Since the block reward is still fairly high in comparison to fees, this is considered to be an economic strategy.

[CrazyCraig]

Some miners have mining code that works like this:

If they solve a block very quickly after the previous block N (i.e. only a few seconds later), then they simply relay an empty block N + 1 (1 transaction is the minimum required to pay the block reward to their mining address).

The rationale is that if they wait for their mempool to re-sort the remaining transactions, they risk some other miner solving block N + 1 during the time it takes to choose the transactions to include in their solution for block N + 1. Since the block reward is still fairly high in comparison to fees, this is considered to be an economic strategy.

Thank you for this.

Personally I thought it had more to do with transactions in the queue rather than miners picking and choosing.

[amaclin1]

If they solve a block very quickly after the previous block N (i.e. only a few
seconds later), then they simply relay an empty block N + 1

Absurd. Nonsence. Very poor understanding from legendary forum user 

[btctousd81]

If they solve a block very quickly after the previous block N (i.e. only a few
seconds later), then they simply relay an empty block N + 1

Absurd. Nonsence. Very poor understanding from legendary forum user 

enlighten us

[TheQuin]

If they solve a block very quickly after the previous block N (i.e. only a few
seconds later), then they simply relay an empty block N + 1

Absurd. Nonsence. Very poor understanding from legendary forum user 

No, he was spot on actually. When the previous block has just been found other miners may not have yet had the new block relayed to them so they do not know what is included in it. If they include transactions in their block that were in the previous block it would be rejected as invalid. In that situation, they will mine an empty block to claim the block reward.

https://news.bitcoin.com/reason-bitcoin-miners-empty-blocks/

In that case, the miner must start with an empty block N+1, even if there are transactions waiting in his queue: because, without knowing the contents of block N, he cannot check whether those transactions are valid or not. If he is lucky, he may solve that empty block N+1, even before he finishes downloading the body of block N. That is why there are empty blocks. 

[amaclin1]

No, he was spot on actually. When the previous block has just been found other miners may not have yet had the new block relayed to them so they do not know what is included in it. If they include transactions in their block that were in the previous block it would be rejected as invalid. In that situation, they will mine an empty block to claim the block reward.

This explanation is much better (but not perfect either).

It does not cover the processes in the stratum protocol between pool and connected to it asics,
but at least it does not have the words "...then they simply relay an empty block N + 1..."

[Turkish88]

Maybe it was 51% attack ? I do not know how but this is the place to be, big amount of miners accept this version of block #503198

[btctousd81]

Maybe it was 51% attack ? I do not know how but this is the place to be, big amount of miners accept this version of block #503198

imho 51% attack is not that easy and why do something like that ? unless there are bitcoins worth couple of millions are at stake.

[TheQuin]

Maybe it was 51% attack ? I do not know how but this is the place to be, big amount of miners accept this version of block #503198

imho 51% attack is not that easy and why do something like that ? unless there are bitcoins worth couple of millions are at stake.

No, it was not, the answer has already been given above. Please take the time to read and learn something rather than just posting complete nonsense.

[Carlton Banks]

"...then they simply relay an empty block N + 1..."

that means "the next block". English is not your first language, that's always been abundantly clear.

https://news.bitcoin.com/reason-bitcoin-miners-empty-blocks/

In that case, the miner must start with an empty block N+1, even if there are transactions waiting in his queue: because, without knowing the contents of block N, he cannot check whether those transactions are valid or not. If he is lucky, he may solve that empty block N+1, even before he finishes downloading the body of block N. That is why there are empty blocks.

Hmmm, I discounted this specific situation due to how long BIP 152 (compact blocks) has been available, my understanding was that new blocks now propagate so fast that orphaned blocks (the result of trying to propagate new block solutions with transactions from a previous block) are exceptionally rare.

So, I figured that with such a big mempool these days, re-sorting transactions for inclusion would be a more significant factor than knowing which transactions are now invalid in a new block. But in essence, it's propagation latency issues (i.e. the block race) that cause miners to mine empty blocks. Which latency issues are relevant today, I am not completely sure of.

[amaclin1]

"...then they simply relay an empty block N + 1..."

that means "the next block". English is not your first language, that's always been abundantly clear.

English is not my native language too. The problem is in another place.
It it not possible to relay empty block N + 1 simply or hardly or any other manner
because block is not solved yet!

[TheQuin]

Which latency issues are relevant today, I am not completely sure of.

Simply that the miner finds the next block when he is aware of a new block but hasn't fully downloaded and verified it. It might be a very short timespan but there still is that in between period however fast your internet connection and processors are. Orphaned blocks are when the miner is totally unaware of the new block and as you say a very rare now.

[Carlton Banks]

It it not possible to relay empty block N + 1 simply or hardly or any other manner
because block is not solved yet!

If one defines block N as the most recent block, and N + 1 as the subsequent block to that, and that a given miner has a solution for N + 1, then said miner can successfully relay their solution for block N + 1. You clearly didn't understand my sentence, otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to imply I said something which I didn't say.

Which latency issues are relevant today, I am not completely sure of.

Simply that the miner finds the next block when he is aware of a new block but hasn't fully downloaded and verified it. It might be a very short timespan but there still is that in between period however fast your internet connection and processors are. Orphaned blocks are when the miner is totally unaware of the new block and as you say a very rare now.

I guess that condition could still exist, compact blocks do not change the probability of solving blocks seconds after the previous block, and so there is only a marginal case where compact blocks improve the window of opportunity to win the propagation-race of a full block v.s. an empty block. I assumed that transaction re-ordering for a large mempool was the contemporary reason for empty blocks without considering this.

[amaclin1]

If one defines block N as the most recent block, and N + 1 as the subsequent block to that, and that a given miner has a solution for N + 1, then said miner can successfully relay their solution for block N + 1. You clearly didn't understand my sentence, otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to imply I said something which I didn't say.

Miner (asic holder) does not have transaction set ever! And mining software does not
switch automatically to block N+1 if block N is found somewhere in network.
I understand you lack of knowledge. Your explanations are very poor. Point. Good bye. I am out from this topic

[Carlton Banks]

I see, so how does the miner broadcast a block they solved if they never know which transactions to include since the last block? All blocks would be empty if that was true.


amaclin, you made an abrupt decision to start distinguishing between ASIC software and mining software, which are indeed different, in order to make a childish point about nothing except your tiny ego (that distinction has no relevance when explaining this phenomenon). Please don't return to the thread, you're not very helpful

[Colorblind]

If one defines block N as the most recent block, and N + 1 as the subsequent block to that, and that a given miner has a solution for N + 1, then said miner can successfully relay their solution for block N + 1. You clearly didn't understand my sentence, otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to imply I said something which I didn't say.

Miner (asic holder) does not have transaction set ever! And mining software does not
switch automatically to block N+1 if block N is found somewhere in network.
I understand you lack of knowledge. Your explanations are very poor. Point. Good bye. I am out from this topic

Miner receives block contents (transactions) from mining pool. It's not miner's job to form the block, his job is to calculate nonce.

P.s. by miner in this context I mean ASIC owner. Not canonical "Miner", that is actually made from pool+all ASICs.

[DannyHamilton]

Miner (asic holder) does not have transaction set ever! And mining software does not
switch automatically to block N+1 if block N is found somewhere in network.
I understand you lack of knowledge. Your explanations are very poor. Point. Good bye. I am out from this topic

Miner receives block contents (transactions) header (or perhaps midstate) from mining pool. It's not miner's job to form the block, his job is to calculate nonce.

While I don't always agree with amaclin1's methods or opinions, he is generally correct when he is talking specifically about bitcoin technical facts.

I'm also aware that his responses to Carlton Banks and TheQuin were the result of changing from a generalized discussion of "miners" to a specific discussion of "mining pool hashing participants".

That being said, he is correct when he says that the (asic holder) does not have the transactions, and you are mistaken when you suggest that they do have the "block contents". I've corrected your response to him where I've quoted you above.

The miner (ASIC holder) typically does NOT receive the contents or transactions of the block. All he needs to do his job is the 80 byte header.  I haven't paid close attention to developments in pool mining, but I'm guessing that most modern pool mining doesn't even send the entire header?  It probably just sends the midstate after beginning the SHA256 hash on the first half of the header.