<p>No, succeeding blocks by the same entity should never be empty.<br>
Empty blocks occur when another miner finds a block before they have validated the previous block. Before having validated the previous block they don't know which transactions remain unconfirmed. However, if they'd include a transaction that was already confirmed their block would be invalid. Thus, to play it safe, they restart mining on an empty block.</p>

<p>As the miner that created the last block knows exactly which transactions where included from the start, they have no reason to mine empty block and can immediately include transactions. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-06T12:03:10.820Z
2016-07-06T12:03:10.820Z
Murch
<p>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 unaware of which transactions were included. Thus an empty block is more likely when it was mined by someone else.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-27T00:17:44.247Z
2016-01-27T03:31:41.793Z
2016-01-27T03:31:41.793Z
Mark S.
<p>If not SPV mining, so-called "empty blocks" occur if there are no available transactions to include and is usually when the previous block was solved a short period of time previously.</p>

<p>Is there any reason for this to happen more often if the previous block was solved by the same entity?</p>

<transaction-selection><empty-blocks>
Are sequential blocks more likely to be "empty" if solved by the same entity?
organofcorti
# Are sequential blocks more likely to be "empty" if solved by the same entity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-01-26)

If not SPV mining, so-called "empty blocks" occur if there are no available transactions to include and is usually when the previous block was solved a short period of time previously.

Is there any reason for this to happen more often if the previous block was solved by the same entity?

**Tags:** transaction-selection, empty-blocks


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-01-27. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

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 unaware of which transactions were included. Thus an empty block is more likely when it was mined by someone else.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-07-06. Score: 0

No, succeeding blocks by the same entity should never be empty.  
Empty blocks occur when another miner finds a block before they have validated the previous block. Before having validated the previous block they don't know which transactions remain unconfirmed. However, if they'd include a transaction that was already confirmed their block would be invalid. Thus, to play it safe, they restart mining on an empty block.

As the miner that created the last block knows exactly which transactions where included from the start, they have no reason to mine empty block and can immediately include transactions.


---

