pull down to refresh

Significant Shift in Pool Share Distribution on Mempool: Is it Accurate?
2793 sats \ 13 comments \ @fbv000 27 May 2023 bitcoin
Comparing the Mempool pool rankings from the last 30 days to the current day reveals significant changes:
RankMining Pool NameTotal Shares (Percentage)
1Foundry USA1376 (31.13%)
2AntPool1010 (22.85%)
3F2Pool474 (10.72%)
4Binance Pool393 (8.89%)
5ViaBTC369 (8.35%)
Current day:
RankMining Pool NameHashrate (EH/s)
1Foundry USA107.20 EH/s
2AntPool82.27 EH/s
3Unknown64.82 EH/s
4Binance Pool32.41 EH/s
5MARA Pool19.94 EH/s
6ViaBTC12.47 EH/s
7Braiins Pool7.48 EH/s
8F2Pool7.48 EH/s
a new unknown pool has emerged and secured the third position in terms of hashrate. It's important to note that the provided information differs from the mining summary found on BTC Explorer.
write
preview
related posts
562 sats \ 11 replies \ @shibe 27 May 2023
This "Unknown" pool is clearly F2Pool, if you look at the coinbase tags for the blocks they mine. Which also explains why F2Pool's hashrate has dropped.
The reason why mempool.space isn't picking this up is strange. I first thought F2Pool is using a new address. Instead, all of their mined blocks now have 2 outputs. One is for just 546 satoshis, and the second output is the address they've always been using.
I'm baffled as to why F2Pool would create outputs of what appear to be dust. If someone here could try and explain this, I'd appreciate it
reply
433 sats \ 3 replies \ @Lux 27 May 2023
I'm baffled as to why F2Pool would create outputs of what appear to be dust. If someone here could try and explain this, I'd appreciate it
ordinals. just above the dust level
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 28 May 2023
That doesn't seem to check out. First off the address they're repeatedly sending 546 satoshis to is a legacy address. Second, unless they mine their own transaction you'd need more than 546 satoshis to mint even a BRC-20.
Could they perhaps be attempting to collect "rare" satoshis? I have no idea
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nkmg1c_ventures 27 May 2023
What's the "dust level"?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 27 May 2023
At the default dustRelayFee of 3,000 sat/kvB, given the size of a P2PKH input being 148 bytes and the size of a P2PKH output being 34 bytes, P2PKH outputs worth less than 546 satoshis are considered dust by Bitcoin Core (546 satoshi being the smallest non-dust value) https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10986/what-is-meant-by-bitcoin-dust
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @energycurrency 27 May 2023
deleted by author
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lumor 27 May 2023
In the end it's up to the miners to decide if they want to optimize for highest fees all the time or take payment for including transactions via some out of band channel. See for example the zero fee taproot wizards transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae
There are several other zero fee transactions way before "inscriptions" was invented.
Also, as Odell tries to communicate, there is not just one mempool. Every node has one, and they will be slightly different while transactions are communicated, hence no enforceable dust limit. Fee rates fluctuate over time.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @energycurrency 27 May 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 27 May 2023
Okay, a very low minimum fee could be a requirement added by a soft fork.
But the actual minimum set by the fluctuating fee market cannot be defined with precision that would enable a block to fail validation.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @benthecarman 27 May 2023
It's mempool policy, not a consensus rule
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @energycurrency 27 May 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 28 May 2023
Yeah they aren't
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nymkappa_ 27 May 2023
That's a bug and we fixed it in master already. It will be progressively deployed in prod. See https://github.com/mempool/mempool/pull/3791. Self hosted instance will get the fix in 2.5.1 one we tag it.
reply