Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.52; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qa0-f52.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:33:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTRKGPGv5UyLNXYbYOPQD-ogWykt0KHQsQZ6BuU2dr=NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
Precedence: list

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> There appears to be some non-trivial mining power devoted to mining
> empty blocks.

In the last 2016 blocks, as I write this, there are only 35 1 txn blocks.

This is about 1.73%, which wouldn't be surprising just from timing
alone.  Moreover, a fair amount (I didn't measure the percentage)
appear to be mined by Eligius=E2=80=94 Luke does some clever pre-computatio=
n
of the hash tree for faster distribution right after new blocks.

Resources expended on fancy (and potentially risky) techno-economic
hacks to discourage empty blocks would probably be better spent
writing very fast transaction tree generating code.

Can we kill this thread now?