<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>It could be laziness but i doubt it, especially when the business is so competitive and margins ever shrinking.<div>Half a million dollars in revenue mean little if your running costs are also in the same region.</div><div><br></div><div>Also apologies for the bad formatting, outlook must have screwed it up.</div><div><br></div><div>EmptyBlock /Time since previous block/ Size of previous block(bytes)/Mined by</div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">====================================================</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">370165 29s 720784 </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Antpool</span></div><div>370160 31s 50129 BTCChinaPool</div><div>370076 49s 469988 F2Pool</div><div>370059 34s 110994 Antpool</div><div>370057 73s 131603 Antpool</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div>> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 05:15:15 -0400<br>> From: jl2012@xbt.hk<br>> To: luvb@hotmail.com<br>> CC: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners are struggling with blocks far smaller than 750KB blocks and resorting to SPV mining<br>> <br>> The traffic between the pool server and individual hashers is far busier <br>> than 50kB/30s. If their bandwidth is so limited, hashers would have <br>> switched to other pools already.<br>> <br>> All these data may prove is they have very bad mining codes. For <br>> example, their hashers may not be required to update the transaction <br>> list regularly. I don't think they are struggling. They are just too <br>> lazy or think that's too risky to improve their code. After all, they <br>> are generating half million USD per day and a few seconds of downtime <br>> would hurt.<br>> <br>> By the way, vast majority of the full blocks (>0.99MB) on the blockchain <br>> are generated by Chinese pools.<br>> <br>> Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev ì¶ 2015-08-17 04:42 Œ‘µ½:<br>> > Hi all,<br>> > <br>> > I previously mentioned in a post that i believe that technically<br>> > nodes are capable of handling blocks an order of magnitude larger than<br>> > the current blocksize limit, the only missing thing was an incentive<br>> > to run them. I have been monitoring the blockchain for the past couple<br>> > of weeks and am seeing that even miners who have all the incentives<br>> > are for whatever reason struggling to download and validate much<br>> > smaller blocks.<br>> > <br>> > The data actually paints a very grim picture of the current<br>> > bandwidth/validating capacity of the global mining network.<br>> > <br>> > See the following empty blocks mined despite a non-trivial elapsed<br>> > time from the previous block just from the past couple of days alone<br>> > (Data from insight.bitpay.com):<br>> > <br>> > EmptyBlock /Time since previous block/ Size of previous<br>> > block(bytes)/Mined by<br>> > ====================================================370165 29s 720784<br>> > Antpool<br>> > 370160 31s 50129 BTCChinaPool<br>> > 370076 49s 469988 F2Pool<br>> > 370059 34s 110994 Antpool<br>> > 370057 73s 131603 Antpool<br>> > <br>> > We have preceding blocks as small as 50KB with 30s passing and the<br>> > miner continues to mine empty blocks via SPV mining.<br>> > The most glaring case is Block 370057 where despite 73s elapsing and<br>> > the preceding block being a mere 131KB, the miner is unable to<br>> > download/validate fast enough to include transactions in his block.<br>> > Unless ofcourse the miner is mining empty blocks on purpose, which<br>> > does not make sense as all of these pools do mine blocks with<br>> > transactions when the elapsed time is greater.<br>> > <br>> > This is a cause for great concern, because if miners are SPV mining<br>> > for a whole minute for <750KB blocks, at 8MB blocks, the network will<br>> > just fall apart as a significant portion of the hashing power SPV<br>> > mines throughout. All a single malicious miner has to do is mine an<br>> > invalid block on purpose, let these pools SPV mine on top of them<br>> > while it mines a valid block free of their competition. Yes, these<br>> > pools deserve to lose money in that event, but the impact of reorgs<br>> > and many block orphans for anyone not running a full node could be<br>> > disastrous, especially more so in the XT world where Mike wants<br>> > everyone to be running SPV nodes. I simply don't see the XT fork<br>> > having any chance of surviving if SPV nodes are unreliable.<br>> > <br>> > And if these pools go out of business, it will lead to even more<br>> > mining centralization which is already too centralized today.<br>> > <br>> > Can anyone representing these pools comment on why this is happening?<br>> > Are these pools on Matt's relay network?<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<br>> <br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>