Is 311023 the biggest block ever found?

[Sword Smith]

In terms of the number of transactions, I mean. Perhaps also in the size:

Number Of Transactions   2474
Size   895.244140625 KB

https://blockchain.info/block-index/450611/00000000000000001fe002705867108b54e4f532f78358040c7d2c0e6611a24e

I googled "biggest bitcoin block", but did not find anything conclusive. Only a reddit reference to a smaller block which was by some thought to be the largest at the time:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1een9d/this_has_got_to_be_the_largest_block_ever_created/

[TimS]

In terms of the number of transactions, I mean. Perhaps also in the size:

Number Of Transactions   2474
Size   895.244140625 KB

Nope. It is unusually large in both of these measures, but not the largest. See the charts at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=695982.msg7862191#msg7862191 (and the links at the bottom of that post)
There is a block with ~3800 transactions, and a block very near the maximum of 1e6 bytes (~1MB). I don't know their block numbers off-hand, but they exist.

[Meuh6879]

big blocks recorded here : http://btc.blockr.io/trivia/block

[nkocevar]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

[RodeoX]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

I don't know the answer, but I think one could create a block with no transactions. I think?

[nkocevar]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

I don't know the answer, but I think one could create a block with no transactions. I think?

But I mean in "modern times" arent there transactions every millisecond? How could one be created with 0?

[thatguy42]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

That would be block 310853.
1 transaction 25 BTC reward.

[nkocevar]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

That would be block 310853.
1 transaction 25 BTC reward.

What was the date on that block? I assume that would just be an easy google. unless someone wants to do a lmgtfy lol xD

[TimS]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

I don't know the answer, but I think one could create a block with no transactions. I think?

But I mean in "modern times" arent there transactions every millisecond? How could one be created with 0?

Sure, a miner could almost always include transactions in a block, but he doesn't have to include any transactions. He could simply produce the empty block. So, for whatever reasons, sometimes miners do just that.

[nkocevar]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

I don't know the answer, but I think one could create a block with no transactions. I think?

But I mean in "modern times" arent there transactions every millisecond? How could one be created with 0?

Sure, a miner could almost always include transactions in a block, but he doesn't have to include any transactions. He could simply produce the empty block. So, for whatever reasons, sometimes miners do just that.

What would be the reason behind doing that? Whats the use of an empty block if it contains no transactions?

[RodeoX]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

I don't know the answer, but I think one could create a block with no transactions. I think?

But I mean in "modern times" arent there transactions every millisecond? How could one be created with 0?

I don't mine and am somewhat ignorant about the details. However I have seen a proposed network attack that was based on the ability of a miner to quickly create an "empty" block that could be accepted by the network. My understanding is that while they might make an empty block it is still highly unlikely for the attack to succeed.  

[sickpig]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

I don't know the answer, but I think one could create a block with no transactions. I think?

But I mean in "modern times" arent there transactions every millisecond? How could one be created with 0?

There's no block with 0 transaction. By definition a block contains at least 1 tx, the coinbase tx.

Anyway look at the link that a good soul shared a few posts ago and you'll find the answer you're searching for.

For your convinience

Blocks with 1 transaction: 84607

EDIT: fix grammar and typos

[DannyHamilton]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

That would be block 310853.
1 transaction 25 BTC reward.

What was the date on that block? I assume that would just be an easy google. unless someone wants to do a lmgtfy lol xD

2014-07-15 14:44:56

It happens frequently.  I don't understand why a miner would intentionally confirm a block with no transactions, since they are missing out on transaction fees, but it happens.

However I have seen a proposed network attack that was based on the ability of a miner to quickly create an "empty" block that could be accepted by the network.  

It isn't any faster or slower to mine an empty (generation transaction only) block than a block with many transactions.

[cr1776]

...It happens frequently.  I don't understand why a miner would intentionally confirm a block with no transactions, since they are missing out on transaction fees, but it happens.
...

Smaller blocks have smaller propagation time (e.g. header and block), so some miners mine only with the coinbase transaction and add no others.  Whether that is accurate in reality, I do not know, but that is the explanation.  ;-)

see e.g.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324972.0

[DannyHamilton]

...It happens frequently.  I don't understand why a miner would intentionally confirm a block with no transactions, since they are missing out on transaction fees, but it happens.
...

Smaller blocks have smaller propagation time (e.g. header and block), so some miners mine only with the coinbase transaction and add no others.  Whether that is accurate in reality, I do not know, but that is the explanation.  ;-)

see e.g.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324972.0

As long as the transaction fee overcomes the probability of orphans, it makes poor financial sense to exclude the transaction.  As such, it would seem that the miners (and pools) that choose to include no transactions will be less profitable than the miners (and pools) that include transactions that pay a high enough fee.  This reduce profitability should cause them to eventually be less competitive (less revenue to update equipment, less rewards to pay pool participants).  Over time, this should weed out most of these miners and pools, and increase the percentage of blocks that include transactions.

As the block subsidy shrinks, the value of transaction fees will increase.  I suspect that the willingness of miners and pools to willingly leave out transactions is largely a temporary effect of a large subsidy to fee ratio.

[DjPxH]

There are a lot of blocks that became orphaned around that block. Did something strange happen today? I'm trying to figure out the reason but can't seem to really wrap my head around it.

[azeteki]

Can't guarantee this is accurate, but my stats report the following:

In the chain with hash 00000000000000001fc78d459e2480177ceea92d53f75cdbd856501b60cbdc3a at height 311020:

Largest block: height 309740 (998089 bytes)
Smallest block: height 225943 (176 bytes)
Highest transaction count: height 256961 (3861 transactions)
There are lots of recent blocks with 1 transaction: 310951; 310939; 310853; 310754; 310740; 310705...

[Sword Smith]

Apparently the block that I referred to (00000000000000001fe002705867108b54e4f532f78358040c7d2c0e6611a24e) was orphaned. Instead it was replaced by 0000000000000000132b4918e302e1630971870f4ae5a9aca009a0c75c7af27e. Being orphaned means that it is no longer part of the longest chain. But do any of you know why then it shows up in the list of the last blocks found on blockchain.info while the main chain block does not?




Is this a bug on blockchain.info?

Compare these two links:
http://btc.blockr.io/block/info/311023
https://blockchain.info/block-height/311023

They refer to two different blocks  

Edit: The blockchain.info refers to BOTH but blockr refers to the "real" one. But the list of last blocks on blockchain.info only refers to the orphaned one.

[DannyHamilton]

Is this a bug on blockchain.info?

Yes.

[franky1]

Speaking of the largest block. what is the smallest block with the least transactions within a year? I mean there has to be a block with maybe like 50 transactions right?

someone just the other day was moaning about a 1tx block
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=684565.0