Bitcoin hardware

earn bitcoin

Empty Block Gegevens by Mining Pool

Abstract: Te this chunk wij present gegevens displaying the proportion of empty blocks (blocks containing only the coinbase transaction) produced by the different mining pools, overheen time. Wij look at the mining methodologies pools could choose and how thesis policies could influence the proportion of empty blocks.

Empty Block Overview

Wij recently published a chunk describing covert ASICBOOST and wij explained the allegation that particular mining pools may be using this methodology. Some voorkoop that circumstantial evidence supporting this allegation, is that some mining pools produce more empty blocks (or more smaller blocks) than other mining pools.

Readers have asked us for gegevens backing up this assertion, spil only limited gegevens has bot published on this specific topic, spil far spil wij are aware. Wij are not going to draw any stiff conclusions from the gegevens on the prevalence of empty blocks, however wij present it for your consideration. Wij also explain some of the other potential reasons for empty blocks, including SPV mining and SPY mining.

Figure 1 &ndash, Summary chart &ndash, Rolling average percentage of empty blocks (overheen 1,000 block period) by pool

Source: Bitcoin Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: Gegevens up to 25th August 2017. Due to the different frequency with which different pools find blocks, the same dates on the chart could reflect different periods

Charts illustrating the proportion of empty blocks by mining pool

Figure Two &ndash, Percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, 2017 YTD

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: Gegevens up to 22nd October 2017

Figure Three &ndash, Percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, 2016

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Figure Four &ndash, Percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, 2015

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Figure Five &ndash, Percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, 2014

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Figure 6 &ndash, All time percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, Monthly gegevens

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: Gegevens only included if the pool found 300 blocks or more within the month, Gegevens up to 22nd October 2017

Figure 7 &ndash, 2016 onwards &ndash, percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, Monthly gegevens

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: Gegevens only included if the pool found 300 blocks or more within the month, Gegevens up to 22nd October 2017

Figure 8 &ndash, 2017 YTD &ndash, percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, Monthly gegevens

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: Gegevens only included if the pool found 300 blocks or more within the month, Gegevens up to 22nd October 2017

Summary statistics by year (top 11 pools ranked by the last 12 months)

Figure 9 &ndash, Summary table for 2017 (to 25th August)

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Figure Ten &ndash, Summary table for 2016

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Figure 11 &ndash, Summary table for 2015

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Validationless mining &ndash, SPV mining &, SPY mining

Te order to build on top of the previous block and extend the chain, mining pools need the hash of the previous block, but not necessarily the total block with all the transaction gegevens. Mining pools are te a rush to make the chain spil long spil they can spil prompt spil possible to increase profits. Therefore miners often have a policy of attempting to find the next block before they have even had time to download and verify the previous block. If this occurs, a miner typically avoids putting any transactions ter the block (bijzonder from the coinbase transaction), spil the miner may not know which transactions were te the previous block and including any transactions could result ter a dual spend, resulting te an invalid block rejected by the network. The term used to describe this type of activity is &ldquo,SPV mining&rdquo,.

The efficacy of SPV mining is debated ter the Bitcoin community, with advocates claiming this is legitimate profit maximising activity. While opponents of this policy voorwaarde it reduces the transaction capacity of the network (since empty blocks still keep the mining difficulty up) and that it increases the probability of an invalid block receiving more confirmations, ensuring the network is less reliable for payments spil dual spends are more likely.

Another term often used is &ldquo,SPY mining&rdquo,. When a mining pool wants to get the previous block even quicker, they often participate spil a miner on a rivaling pool, but instead of adding actual hashpower to the pool, they use the access to the network to get access to the previous block hash even swifter and then use this information obtained by &ldquo,spying&rdquo, on their own pool.

Different mining pools are said to have different policies. For example AntPool is said to conduct SPV mining, while Bitfury is said to not engage te this practice. Spil figure 9 shows, Bifury produced 0.0% empty blocks ter 2017, compared to Antpool on 1.8%. SPV mining is believed to be the primary cause of this difference.

The above factors may explain the difference ter the proportion of empty blocks, rather than covert ASICBOOST. Alternatively, there could be another factor which wij are not aware of, neither SPV mining strafgevangenis ASICBOOST, causing the variation.

However, those supporting the covert ASICBOOST theory have bot able to use the empty block gegevens to generate circumstantial evidence supporting their theory. For example figure 8 could be said to demonstrate the following:

  • Up until April 2017 Antpool (orange) produced the highest proportion of empty blocks, at a rate far higher than its peers
  • Te April 2017 this switched to BTC.com (dark blue) a pool possessed by the same company spil Antpool
  • Ter October 2017, unknown miners (light green) embarked to produce empty blocks, spil Antpool attempted to conceal its policy even further

Ter our view this hypothesis is certainly possible, but also reasonably powerless. Further evidence may be required to draw any stiff conclusions.

The time gap inbetween blocks

Another factor to consider is timing. SPV mining occurs because miners are keen to get to work on the next block quickly, before they have had time to validate the previous block. Therefore, te the majority of cases where miners do not quickly find the next block, say within 30 seconds, the influence of SPV mining should be limited, since miners do have time to validate.

Figure 12 below is a repeat of figure Three above, except this time wij have excluded the empty blocks which occurred within 30 seconds of the previous block being found. This may partially eliminate the influence of SPV mining. Albeit the gegevens with respect to timing may not be reliable.

Figure 12 &ndash, Percentage of empty blocks by pool &ndash, 2016 (30 2nd gap or more from the previous block)

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: The time gap may not be reliable

Smaller but non empty blocks

The analysis ter this lump only looks at empty blocks. The ASICBOOST allegation is not only about empty blocks, but also smaller blocks. Smaller but non empty blocks can also assist with covert ASICBOOST due to the smaller size of the Merkle tree. Te a straks lump wij project to look at the proportion of thesis smaller blocks ter more detail.

Te the below analysis wij compared the timing inbetween the previous blocks and the blocksize, for two particular pools. One which claims to do SPV mining (Antpool) and one which claims not to (Bitfury).

The charts illustrate that the variations inbetween pools are not just about empty blocks, but also smaller blocks. The charts voorstelling that Bitfury has a more &ldquo,neat&rdquo, chart, with smaller blocks only occurring when the time gap inbetween the previous block wasgoed puny. Ter tegenstelling the Antpool chart shows up more &ldquo,messy&rdquo,, with empty and smaller blocks more prevalent regardless of the time gap inbetween the previous block.

Figure 13 &ndash, Antpool (2017 YTD) &ndash, Blocksize compared to the time gap inbetween the previous block

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: The y-axis is the time gap from the previous block ter seconds, the x-axis is the blocksize ter bytes. The time gap may not be reliable

Figure 14 &ndash, Bitfury (2017 YTD) &ndash, Blocksize compared to the time gap inbetween the previous block

Source: Blockchain, BitMEX Research, Blockchain.informatie (For mining pool name)

Notes: The y-axis is the time gap from the previous block ter seconds, the x-axis is the blocksize ter bytes. The time gap may not be reliable

It is difficult to draw any hard conclusions from thesis charts. However one ironic thing stands out to us, from this analysis. The pools arguing most intensively for larger blocks, tend on average, to produce smaller blocks.

Please accomplish the security check to access www.bitzfree.com

Why do I have to finish a CAPTCHA?

Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you makeshift access to the web property.

What can I do to prevent this ter the future?

If you are on a individual connection, like at huis, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or collective network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Another way to prevent getting this pagina ter the future is to use Privacy Pass. Check out the browser extension ter the Firefox Add-ons Store.

Cloudflare Ray ID: 3ce4ccb01e5c75ee &bull, Your IP : 212.34.97.Five &bull, Spectacle &, security by Cloudflare

Related movie: A Closer Look At Bitcoin Exchanges | CNBC



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

https://bachelorthesiswritingservice.com