It's possible that this could happen just because there aren't any transactions to be mined. Early on in the bitcoin block chain, this was often the case. This could also happen if two blocks are solved on top of each other in a very short amount of time, with not much time for new transactions to be broadcasted in between. Today, however, more often than ...
It has no transactions other than the coinbase transaction. However, the transaction's coinbase output is 0 BTC. Here's the valuable piece of information that you are looking for:
Coinbase outputs may be set lower than the max. value (12.5 currently), and the block will be valid (if the difficulty is lower than the target, as always)
Also look at: https:/...
SPV mining is the term commonly used for 'less-than-full-node-validation' mining. It usually means that miners skip the verification of the block and the transactions within, and immediately start mining a new block referencing the just-solved block header. However, since they don't know what is in the last block, they have to mine without any transactions (...
There is no minimum size restraint on blocks and transactions. However, due to the nature of blocks and transactions, there is a practical minimum.
The smallest transaction I can think of is 61 bytes. It is a transaction that spends an OP_TRUE anyonecanspend output and creates 1 OP_TRUE anyonecanspend output. The smallest block I can think of is 146 bytes. ...
This is essentially correct: the protocol leaves it up to the miner to decide which transactions to include in a block. There is no requirement for them to include any transactions at all, other than the "coinbase" transaction which specifies where to send the block reward.
However, most transactions have fees attached, which the miner can collect only by ...
You are making an incorrect assumption here:
While blocks can validate transactions, it is not necessary for transactions to occur in order to create blocks. The only transaction that is required in a block is the Coinbase which is the transaction that creates new bitcoins. This transaction is created by each miner for their block attempts individually (as ...
This is the previous block,
Number Of Transactions 86
Height 289790 (Main Chain)
Timestamp 2014-03-09 23:24:02
Size 43.853 KB
This is the block you are talking about
Number Of Transactions 1
Height 289791 (Main Chain)
Timestamp 2014-03-09 23:30:23
Size 0.183 KB
As you can see by the size of the previous block, there was little ...
They would mine empty blocks. Block difficulty would remain the same.
Would they have an incentive to mine blocks? In the year 2140, all mining rewards will be from fees. If there are no transactions, there are no fees. Between now and then, rewards will step down over time. So either:
Clients will keep mining.
Clients will stop mining because there are no ...
Yes, you are correct that miners get to decide whether to include transactions in their block that they're mining. The protocol itself doesn't force them to include any transactions. Instead, they have a financial incentive to include transactions because they can collect transaction fees and profit more.
It's an interesting trade-off for them, because ...
It is actually less likely to occur by the same miner. The reason for this is the fact that the miner that found the Block will have already validated it, thus it knows which transactions from the mempool were used. If the block is mined by another person their mining software might not have validated the previously mined block yet, which causes them to be ...
There is virtually no "empty blocks". All blocks except the genesis block is actually headed by the hash of preceding block and then followed by the miners reward of the previous block in terms of the first transaction of the current block. Therefore there should always be at least one transaction.
There are always transactions waiting to be verified. Every Bitcoin transaction ever performed is waiting to get one more verification. Even if you don't include any transactions in a block, that block adds proof of work to every transaction in every prior block.
It is fairly normal and there 2 common reasons for this.
The first reason is when 2 blocks are solved relatively close to each other in time. The second of these blocks may not have any transactions to include.
The second reason is that bigger blocks take longer to propagate across the network. It is often in the interest of the block solver to ...
Transactions are not necessary to mine blocks.
In simple terms: mining a block = finding a hash that matches with the previous block's hash + optionally a bunch of unconfirmed transactions.
A block doesn't need to include any transactions. And if there are unconfirmed transactions, a block may include all, some, or none of them.
If there are, it's in the ...
The goal of mining is essentially to (i) create new coins out of thin-air and (ii) to secure the network from double-spending attacks.
So no, the act of mining does not create new transactions to be mined, and it does not create work for itself. It validates transactions and keeps the nodes of the network on the same state.
Outputs with 0 value are valid (but non-standard). When the block subsidy reaches 0, blocks without fees will need to produce coinbase transactions with 0-value outputs. Every block must have a coinbase transaction.
That is far in the future and can still be changed, but at the current time a coinbase transaction is required and will always be present. It is very likely that this rule will be upheld in the future as well. It is also possible that the transaction accuracy could be increased enough for there to always be a block reward, however minuscule.
Block contains "RSKBLOCK:Ý¿QzßýKÊwQP[9É:
ÔyüN9ÝW³GÆ$", so I think that it is related to www.rsk.co. Probably Sidechains synchronization.
Binary hex: "52534b424c4f434b3addbf517adf8ffd4bca7751505b39c9013a0d1fd479fc4e901b39dd57b347c624"
How this can be possible and what for?
A miner is under no obligation to include transactions in a block, but there are incentives for them to do so:
the miner will make more revenue, since they will collect transaction fees
miners are invested in their operations, and thus want to see bitcoin succeed. If no miners processed transactions, bitcoin would not ...
Now my question is, we hash the previous block chain's hash with transactions and the nonce?
We can look at the form of a block here.
The information that is actually hashed include the version, previous block hash, the merkle root of the transactions the miner has included in the block, the current time, the target difficulty of the block, and the 32bit ...
No, it isn't any kind of abuse. You don't have to worry (well perhaps a bit) about 'transaction starvation' (i.e. transactions that get never included because miners refuse to include them), as it is unlikely that one person (or more cooperating) will obtain 51% of the hash power. And even when they obtain 51%, they will be basically cutting themselves from ...
BTC.com has done this 5 times in the last 6 days. With the number of unconfirmed transactions been larger than 2-3 full blocks, clearly lack of available transactions is not the problem. It is also interesting that is coming from the same miner pool.
Simple: they don't.
It's not in the best interest of the network for miners to mine zero-transaction blocks. It means that the transactions in the mempool will have to wait for the next block to be solved before being included. This phenomenon of blocks with no transactions is a product of the block reward still being so relatively high. As it decreases, ...
Miners are free to mine empty blocks if they want. They do not HAVE to include transactions in them. Any block that is well-formatted and extends the blockchain is valid. Miners who do that (mining empty blocks) get the coinbase transaction (12.5BTC) and don't have to deal with the "hassle" of checking pending transactions. They lose the potential ...
This article gives a nice summary of potential causes and solutions to empty blocks mining: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/decline-empty-blocks-has-increased-bitcoins-transaction-capacity/.
AntPools may just be late at implementing the solutions...
A block is required to have one or more transactions. The first transaction must be the coinbase. (This is the transaction that claims the reward.)
Removing transactions from your block will not save you mining time. (Note that it may make your block propagate faster, and it may be impossible to tell if a transaction is valid when SPV mining.)
The (hashing) work required to mine a block is effectively the same whether the block contains any transactions or not. Regarding benefit to the miner, the miner collects transaction fees for all transactions in the block. If the block contains no transactions, then no extra reward is collected beyond the normal block reward (currently 12.5 BTC).
The generation of new coins does create transactions, per se. This is a block reward from the Eligius pool. After the block is found, this transaction is included in the next block. If miners do not build on that block, then the reward is never given. Now, it's not a transaction, technically, but in the spirit of this question, yes, it is basically the same ...