A block containing only 2 transactions

[squatter]

some fools just want to say 'people wont do it because fee's' .. the topic creators example shows pools dont care about fee's

Pools do care about fees. Many pools pay them out as incentive to attract miners. The ones that don't pocket the fees themselves.

In this specific case, the pool's short-lived incentive was to reduce UTXO bloat. The block took 25 seconds to validate and wasn't problematic for the network. Four years later, we haven't seen a similar case -- probably because miners are rational and not altruistic.

Why are you fearmongering about this?

[1714766137]

1714766137

[BrewMaster]

ok. i didn't know about that, thanks for the links.
but the numbers still don't make sense enough to call it a serious issues. 2-3 minutes of confirming a valid block that is mined (which means is worth $130k at current rate) only if a malicious miner created that block is not a serious threat in my opinion and to fix that we need a possibly hard fork to change this in consensus and the drama that forks cause is more serious than this issue.

doesnt require a hard fork at all(if core implemented/allowed it). but i do like how you are trying to prevent a fix by crying that it will cause disruption.. sorry but it wont, there are many ways to implement it without forking.

is it a change in consensus or not? if it is (which i say it is) then it requires a hard fork to be enforced otherwise nodes not relaying certain transactions is already happening and it is not fixing the issue that you started the discussion with.
if you think it is an implementation bug not protocol/consensus then it is a different discussion and talking about it here is pointless, open a PR on github if you know how to fix it.

Hard fork could be avoided if no miners decide to include transaction above the limit which allowed to be relayed by default.

that's the thing though, they don't need to  decide they already don't include non-standard transactions and these transactions aren't being relayed in first place.
the problem was about "malicious miner" creating a "malicious block" that is valid as far as protocol/consensus is concerned.

[squatter]

doesnt require a hard fork at all(if core implemented/allowed it). but i do like how you are trying to prevent a fix by crying that it will cause disruption.. sorry but it wont, there are many ways to implement it without forking.

is it a change in consensus or not? if it is (which i say it is) then it requires a hard fork to be enforced otherwise nodes not relaying certain transactions is already happening and it is not fixing the issue that you started the discussion with.

A sigops limit could be done with a soft fork. It just requires a patch that censors transactions that use "too many" inputs. If a majority of miners enforce it, it would be effective.

Segwit + witness discount was a much more elegant way to approach the issue. By discounting witness data, users are incentivized to transact with linear scaling sigops. So we're achieving the same ends on a voluntary basis.

[Wind_FURY]

Is the block mined using Antpool?

Tin foil hats on, but the mempool might start growing large again, causing the fees to increase. Haha.

[franky1]

some fools just want to say 'people wont do it because fee's' .. the topic creators example shows pools dont care about fee's

Pools do care about fees. Many pools pay them out as incentive to attract miners. The ones that don't pocket the fees themselves.

In this specific case, the pool's short-lived incentive was to reduce UTXO bloat. The block took 25 seconds to validate and wasn't problematic for the network. Four years later, we haven't seen a similar case -- probably because miners are rational and not altruistic.

Why are you fearmongering about this?

why are you brushing bug, issues under the carpet and then dying the carpet pink, then covering it in glitter to make things look prettier than what they are trying to hide?

miners rational, miners care about fee's.. topic creators example alone proves the opposite. (a)1tx (b)no fee..
again core devs are avoiding increasing the base block due to THEIR scare tactics and fearmongering that the network wont cope with propogation due to quadratics risks of larger base block. its them saying 'super computers are needed for full nodes'

but fix the issue, reduce the maxtxsigops to 500 and guess what. suddenly someone cant make a single bloated tx to fill a block., it would require hundreds of transactions to fill a block.. which means instead of 1 chance of being in a block, hundreds of chances by default

the risk of quadratics is real, but instead of fixing it, they are using it as a weapon of fear to say bitcoins blockchain cannot cope with scaling. just so they can sell they community onto the idea of using other networks

[franky1]

So we're achieving the same ends on a voluntary basis.

(facepalm)
thats like having a gun problem, but instead of just removing guns. you run a program to give out foodstamps to anyone that hands in a gun..
sorry but thos that want to kill, will still kill. voluntary options dont work against malicious risks.

again core devs refuse to fix the issue because their interests have become commercialied into wanting to push people off the network and into commercial networks and services.

but hey no one cares about network security or scaling capacity using the true bitcoin technology(blockchain) all that cor fangirls care about is the price. so that one day they can exit back to fiat, leaving bitcoin, weakening bitcoin

if yo only care about the price and dont care about bitcoins blockchain security and capacity.. dont bother replying

[javadsalehi]

If you think it's impossible to have such a block these days, check block number 594153 which mined a few minutes ago.
Here the number of transaction included is not 2. The number is 1. Only one transaction which is generating new coins.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000fec146fe9cea2309e368036fd193731c4e1faf5838272
The transaction has been mined only 24 seconds after the previous one.

[franky1]

If you think it's impossible to have such a block these days, check block number 594153 which mined a few minutes ago.
Here the number of transaction included is not 2. The number is 1. Only one transaction which is generating new coins.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000fec146fe9cea2309e368036fd193731c4e1faf5838272
The transaction has been mined only 24 seconds after the previous one.

shhh stop revealing real evidence that pools dont care about fee's.. if people knew that then people will start questioning why devs are saying the fee's need to go up while not scaling bitcoins blockchain(thus ruining onchain utility) and people will start questioning why devs want users to lock funds up into custodial control, which goes against the whole purpose of bitcoins invention.

so please keep it down to a silent whisper or the dev fan girls will troll you to death but not back it up with any research of their own.
[note tone of sarcasm]

[Stedsm]

If you think it's impossible to have such a block these days, check block number 594153 which mined a few minutes ago.
Here the number of transaction included is not 2. The number is 1. Only one transaction which is generating new coins.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000fec146fe9cea2309e368036fd193731c4e1faf5838272
The transaction has been mined only 24 seconds after the previous one.

shhh stop revealing real evidence that pools dont care about fee's..

They don't care? Uummm aaaa I don't think so. I mean why do you think they don't? Even if the block is empty with just newly generated coins being sent to the pool owner, I believe that maybe their set transaction fee limits could not have been met? Correct me if wrong.
Doesn't this look as an attack towards us who use BTC, to spend more on fees to get involved in those blocks? Can this inflate the fees if all miners unite and commit the same?

[figmentofmyass]

If you think it's impossible to have such a block these days, check block number 594153 which mined a few minutes ago.
Here the number of transaction included is not 2. The number is 1. Only one transaction which is generating new coins.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000fec146fe9cea2309e368036fd193731c4e1faf5838272
The transaction has been mined only 24 seconds after the previous one.

shhh stop revealing real evidence that pools dont care about fee's.. if people knew that then people will start questioning why devs are saying the fee's need to go up while not scaling bitcoins blockchain

stop trolling. you expect us to believe that miners are throwing away free money? you know why the second block only included the coinbase transaction: the pool hadn't downloaded/fully validated the previous block and updated mempool yet because the second block was found only 24 seconds later.

they may have been engaging in validationless mining---we're talking about antpool after all.