<p>This is the previous block,</p>

<pre><code>289790
Number Of Transactions  86
Height  289790 (Main Chain)
Timestamp   2014-03-09 23:24:02
Size    43.853 KB
</code></pre>

<p>This is the block you are talking about</p>

<pre><code>Number Of Transactions  1
Height  289791 (Main Chain)
Timestamp   2014-03-09 23:30:23
Size    0.183 KB
</code></pre>

<p>As you can see by the size of the previous block, there was little activity in that time, only 43 KBs worth of transactions, you can also note that both blocks came less than 5 minutes apart, so perhaps the transaction pool was emptied by the previous block and there wasn't enough time for a new transaction to be broadcasted after that. Since every minute counts, miners won't wait for a new transaction to appear because they run the risk to lose the block reward.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-20T14:02:08.520Z
I think this explanation is implausible.  Block 289790 still had 86 transactions, and it is actually stamped *before* its predecessor 289789, so those 86 transactions must have come in a short time.  It seems unlikely that in the following 6 minutes there would be no transactions at all.  The Bitcoin network was much more active than that in 2014.  Also note that block 289792, dated 10 minutes later, had 742 transactions.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-20T14:03:07.117Z
It seems far more likely that there were transactions pending, but the miner of 289791 intentionally omitted them from the block.  There are other questions in the [tag:empty-blocks] tag that explain why one might want to do that.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-20T14:05:41.720Z
Also, to confirm that these are not outliers: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= shows that in early 2014 the network averaged around 300-400 transactions per block.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T00:08:33.630Z
Indeed, it seems that the miner excluded the transactions.
galileopy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-20T02:04:02.143Z
2016-06-20T12:44:02.107Z
2016-06-20T12:44:02.107Z
galileopy
<p>I just came across something strange, block no 289791 which was mined on Mar 10, 2014 is empty of any transactions. Is it because the miner refused to accept any? Or something else?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-20T07:30:54.740Z
related: [What happens if there are no transactions in a block?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/2021/5406), [How often does a block have only one transaction?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/34089/5406)
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-20T13:57:44.897Z
Please browse the [tag:empty-blocks] tag for an explanation of this phenomenon.  This question comes up often.
Nate Eldredge
<empty-blocks>
Why was block # 289791 empty of any transactions?
torstack45
# Why was block # 289791 empty of any transactions?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-20)

I just came across something strange, block no 289791 which was mined on Mar 10, 2014 is empty of any transactions. Is it because the miner refused to accept any? Or something else?

**Tags:** empty-blocks

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: related: [What happens if there are no transactions in a block?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/2021/5406), [How often does a block have only one transaction?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/34089/5406)  
> **username_2**: Please browse the [tag:empty-blocks] tag for an explanation of this phenomenon.  This question comes up often.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-06-20. Score: 6

This is the previous block,

```
289790
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 activity in that time, only 43 KBs worth of transactions, you can also note that both blocks came less than 5 minutes apart, so perhaps the transaction pool was emptied by the previous block and there wasn't enough time for a new transaction to be broadcasted after that. Since every minute counts, miners won't wait for a new transaction to appear because they run the risk to lose the block reward.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I think this explanation is implausible.  Block 289790 still had 86 transactions, and it is actually stamped *before* its predecessor 289789, so those 86 transactions must have come in a short time.  It seems unlikely that in the following 6 minutes there would be no transactions at all.  The Bitcoin network was much more active than that in 2014.  Also note that block 289792, dated 10 minutes later, had 742 transactions.  
> **username_2**: It seems far more likely that there were transactions pending, but the miner of 289791 intentionally omitted them from the block.  There are other questions in the [tag:empty-blocks] tag that explain why one might want to do that.  
> **username_2**: Also, to confirm that these are not outliers: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= shows that in early 2014 the network averaged around 300-400 transactions per block.  
> **username_3**: Indeed, it seems that the miner excluded the transactions.  

---

