I understand that there is incentive to include transactions where the output is less than the input so that the block creator can pocket the difference. But I'm wondering if that is really worthwhile in terms of hashing rate?
I know that overall having transactions is a good thing for the currency, but what if a particular miner only cares about their block finder's reward?
The hash input is split into 512-bit input-blocks, and then the compression function (in yellow) is run once for each input-block (including the output of the previous result).
Assuming that the smallest possible bitcoin-block is < 1024 bits (please correct me if I'm off), then hashing for no transactions will take 4 compressions.
AFAIK, the largest block size is 1MiB, or 8,000,000 bits, requiring 15,625 compression functions, more than 3,900 times longer than for a nil-transactions block.
Will it will take about 3,900 times as long to hash a 1MiB block as to hash a nil-transaction block?
If this is correct within an order of magnitude, then wouldn't it be better to increase the probability of finding a block approx. 3,000 times rather than collecting one block's worth of transaction processing reward?
What is the average transaction fee collection per block?
What if a small consortium of miners took up this strategy for personal profit, riding on the backs of the miners who cared about the ecosystem as a whole and kept it afloat?