Quote from: ranochigo on July 20, 2024, 11:23:28 PM

Quote from: mikeywith on July 20, 2024, 09:59:28 PM

F2pool, Ocean pools are going to be outliers here, simply put, F2pool censorship transactions for political agenda, Ocean censors ordinals/BRC20 tokens, mempool has a similar and better looking indicator called health, here is an example

I thought MARA was the only one, disappointing to see others following in their footsteps as well.

And it's been analyzed by 0xB10C last year on https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/.

Quote from: mikeywith on July 20, 2024, 12:32:31 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on July 19, 2024, 10:05:20 AM

It's very interesting question. Aside from fee rate, miner also need to ensure that total sigops cost of the block isn't above 80000[1]. Otherwise, they may accidentally create invalid block which happened to F2Pool on last year[2].

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v27.1/src/consensus/consensus.h#L16-L17
[2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/117837

F2pool probably doesn't use the default getblocktemplate from core, because BlockAssembler does indeed track the number of sigops for the transactions it includes in the block, more details could be found in validation.cpp

It's the first time I hear about this incident but I am not surprised because F2pool censorship transactions based on OFAC list, which means, they did alter the code that creates their blocks, so somewhere along the line their devs failed, and ended up screwing things massively, good for them -- they deserve it.

While looking for reference link while replying another post, i also found it actually happened twice https://b10c.me/observations/11-invalid-blocks-783426-and-784121/. It's crazy they didn't update their software immediately after 1st incident.