<p>Sure, they could, but how would that help them? They'd still have to mine a block to get the reward. And you get the reward if you mine a block no matter what. So what would all this hacking gain them?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T13:11:29.233Z
wouldn't it be quicker/easier to mine a block with only 1 transaction (mining software fires off the 1 trx with current difficulty to submit a block) vs one that pulls all unconfirmed transactions in queue or is it still the same level of time/effort to mine the block (as normal) with more transactions <= the 1 mb block limit?
Frankenmint
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T14:43:06.770Z
Same. Any work done to add transactions is nothing compared to (on average) the hours or days or weeks or months or years that a miner needs to generate a block. And more transactions can be freely added at any time without showing the process down or losing work.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T17:53:48.140Z
@LightweightHeavyHanded Maybe very, very slightly. But in exchange you lose the opportunity to earn transaction fees and you reduce the value of the system that you've invested in by buying mining hardware. If you're going to do that though, why not mine a block with no transactions (other than the transaction that pays you for mining it).
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T18:30:40.697Z
Your ASIC does the same work on a 1 tx block as a 100 tx block. The CPU does a tiny tiny bit more work for 100 tx before pushing work to the ASIC.

This may matter if you are using an incredibly slow CPU to feed work to the ASIC. In that case I'd recommend rolling ntime to be able to reuse merkle roots. It will cut down CPU usage for generating merkle roots more than using 1 tx blocks would. And you get transaction fees.
Dr.Haribo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T06:04:29.780Z
2014-10-18T06:04:29.780Z
David Schwartz
<p>Could a person hack their miner to simply submit small transaction as soon as a block is found and to submit that as a new block with the 1 transaction to reap the 25 BTC block reward? Say, sending .00001 BTC to myself but doing it 10,000 times between addresses I own with instances of a hacked mining software? For example, I had a 200 GH device with a terribly HUGE config file pointing to 10,000 address:port combinations which are setup from a hosted PC running a listener and submitting the tiny transaction as a pass through back to the 10,000 instances?</p>

<p>I'm sure that 99.999 percent of the tie there is a transaction in the queue that exists waiting to be added onto the next block but what about the .001 percent chance?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T06:02:41.257Z
`I had a 200 GH device with a terribly HUGE config file pointing to 10,000 address:port combinations which are setup from a hosted PC running a listener and submitting the tiny transaction as a pass through back to the 10,000 instances` I can't tell what you're asking. Are you asking if miners can choose to only include their own transactions? Are you asking if a block can be changed after it's discovered? Are you asking if you can include transactions in a block that you don't broadcast to the network?
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T13:14:39.603Z
No I was asking if I could divvy up the hashrate of one device into 10s of thousands of 'partitioned' hashrate per instance as a means to create many several tiny mining instances that could attempt to solve a tiny 1 tx block instead of the entire asic using its 200 GH to solve a block for the tiny 1tx block.
Frankenmint
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-18T18:20:42.513Z
You can mine 1 tx blocks if you want. Nothing prevents you from doing this. You don't need 10 000 network connections to do it.

Your mining hardware is trying billions of different blocks per second in search of a valid one. I don't understand what you are saying about splitting it up. It's not doing duplicate work so there should be no need to split anything up.
Dr.Haribo
<mining-theory>
Could a modified miner send a transaction and broadcast it immediately upon discovery of a block to claim a new block and the 25 BTC block reward?
Frankenmint
# Could a modified miner send a transaction and broadcast it immediately upon discovery of a block to claim a new block and the 25 BTC block reward?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-18)

Could a person hack their miner to simply submit small transaction as soon as a block is found and to submit that as a new block with the 1 transaction to reap the 25 BTC block reward? Say, sending .00001 BTC to myself but doing it 10,000 times between addresses I own with instances of a hacked mining software? For example, I had a 200 GH device with a terribly HUGE config file pointing to 10,000 address:port combinations which are setup from a hosted PC running a listener and submitting the tiny transaction as a pass through back to the 10,000 instances?

I'm sure that 99.999 percent of the tie there is a transaction in the queue that exists waiting to be added onto the next block but what about the .001 percent chance?

**Tags:** mining-theory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: `I had a 200 GH device with a terribly HUGE config file pointing to 10,000 address:port combinations which are setup from a hosted PC running a listener and submitting the tiny transaction as a pass through back to the 10,000 instances` I can't tell what you're asking. Are you asking if miners can choose to only include their own transactions? Are you asking if a block can be changed after it's discovered? Are you asking if you can include transactions in a block that you don't broadcast to the network?  
> **username_0**: No I was asking if I could divvy up the hashrate of one device into 10s of thousands of 'partitioned' hashrate per instance as a means to create many several tiny mining instances that could attempt to solve a tiny 1 tx block instead of the entire asic using its 200 GH to solve a block for the tiny 1tx block.  
> **username_2**: You can mine 1 tx blocks if you want. Nothing prevents you from doing this. You don't need 10 000 network connections to do it.  Your mining hardware is trying billions of different blocks per second in search of a valid one. I don't understand what you are saying about splitting it up. It's not doing duplicate work so there should be no need to split anything up.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-18. Score: 2

Sure, they could, but how would that help them? They'd still have to mine a block to get the reward. And you get the reward if you mine a block no matter what. So what would all this hacking gain them?

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: wouldn't it be quicker/easier to mine a block with only 1 transaction (mining software fires off the 1 trx with current difficulty to submit a block) vs one that pulls all unconfirmed transactions in queue or is it still the same level of time/effort to mine the block (as normal) with more transactions <= the 1 mb block limit?  
> **username_4**: Same. Any work done to add transactions is nothing compared to (on average) the hours or days or weeks or months or years that a miner needs to generate a block. And more transactions can be freely added at any time without showing the process down or losing work.  
> **username_3**: @LightweightHeavyHanded Maybe very, very slightly. But in exchange you lose the opportunity to earn transaction fees and you reduce the value of the system that you've invested in by buying mining hardware. If you're going to do that though, why not mine a block with no transactions (other than the transaction that pays you for mining it).  
> **username_2**: Your ASIC does the same work on a 1 tx block as a 100 tx block. The CPU does a tiny tiny bit more work for 100 tx before pushing work to the ASIC.  This may matter if you are using an incredibly slow CPU to feed work to the ASIC. In that case I'd recommend rolling ntime to be able to reuse merkle roots. It will cut down CPU usage for generating merkle roots more than using 1 tx blocks would. And you get transaction fees.  

---

