0xB10C Profile Banner
b10c Profile
b10c

@0xB10C

Followers
9K
Following
7K
Statuses
1K

Bitcoin developer and observer. @OpenSats grantee. Previously funded by @spiralbtc, @hrf, @bitcoinbrink, and @coinbase. [email protected] (not an e-mail address)

Zurich, CH
Joined June 2011
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
@0xB10C
b10c
25 days
I had a closer look at 15 OFAC-sanctioned transactions recently reported as missing by my miningpool-observer. While all transactions were picked up in the following blocks, it seems like one mining pool started to filter them (again).
10
36
139
@0xB10C
b10c
4 days
0
1
9
@0xB10C
b10c
17 days
My data indicates the same: Binance Pool = SecPool = SigmaPool
Tweet media one
@boerst
boerst
18 days
Bunch of pools all sending empty block templates this morning. Binance, Secpool, Sigmapool, EMCD, Headframe. Strange script tag for all of them too. Today all of these combined represent ~115.42 EH/s (~14.69%) Surely they're not all using a centralized block template provider... right?
Tweet media one
1
11
73
@0xB10C
b10c
21 days
@bitschmidty 880k?
2
0
4
@0xB10C
b10c
23 days
Next to the RSS feed (, there is now also a page displaying recent missing sanctioned transactions on miningpool-observer:
@0xB10C
b10c
25 days
I had a closer look at 15 OFAC-sanctioned transactions recently reported as missing by my miningpool-observer. While all transactions were picked up in the following blocks, it seems like one mining pool started to filter them (again).
2
0
25
@0xB10C
b10c
25 days
@theinstagibbs much evidence for filtering, no evidence for successful censorship
@0xB10C
b10c
25 days
I had a closer look at 15 OFAC-sanctioned transactions recently reported as missing by my miningpool-observer. While all transactions were picked up in the following blocks, it seems like one mining pool started to filter them (again).
1
1
7
@0xB10C
b10c
26 days
1
0
0
@0xB10C
b10c
30 days
@GrassFedBitcoin @leo_haf @mononautical F2Pool at least builds their own templates
0
0
2
@0xB10C
b10c
1 month
@mononautical @OrangeSurfBTC would love to open an issue on The Mempool Open Source Project® for this, but:
Tweet media one
2
0
12
@0xB10C
b10c
1 month
@emzy love it as test for my fork-observer!
0
0
4
@0xB10C
b10c
1 month
@AnyoneOReally1 @mempool mempools can differ - @mempool's nodes likely have a higher uptime and could be better connected. Probably also non-default mempool configuration for 'mempoolexpiry' and 'maxmempool' (size in bytes) which might cause to keep older, low fee tx around for longer one of my nodes:
Tweet media one
2
0
1
@0xB10C
b10c
2 months
@ajtowns @f2pool_official SELECT pool_name, COUNT(height), COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE in_block) / COUNT(in_template) * 100 FROM sanctioned_transaction_info JOIN block ON = block_id GROUP BY pool_name; (since 2024-12-02, don't have older data at hand atm)
Tweet media one
1
0
2
@0xB10C
b10c
2 months
@ajtowns @f2pool_official You would find it better if I would only publicize transactions we can certainly assume to have been filtered?
1
0
1
@0xB10C
b10c
2 months
@peterktodd @ajtowns @f2pool_official @satofishi I wrote my observation down last year in and amended an update after they stopped filtering. We don't (yet) know for sure if they started again or if the two recent transactions just coincidences.
1
0
2
@0xB10C
b10c
2 months
@wk057 @mononautical @f2pool_official fwiw: just checked a bunch of nodes and all saw the transaction at around 06:17:10 UTC or slightly later. F2Pools header timestamp is 06:17:21 UTC (+11s) and I saw the block at 06:18:07 UTC (another +46s). No doubt that the transaction might have been too "young".
0
0
1