BTC抗审查性遭遇挑战：F2Pool过滤美国制裁地址交易细节

Author Bitcoin developer translation Bitcoin trading network My project Mine watchers are used to detect the transactions in the Bitcoin mine pool that could have contained transactions but were not included. In the past few weeks, I found an excluded transaction from the sanctioned address of the Overseas Assets Control Office of the US Treasury Department. This article will discuss whether these transactions were intentionally filtered out because of the sanctioned address or whether there are other possibilities to explain why these transactions were not included in the Bitcoin block. It is very likely that there is a transaction in this transaction that was intentionally filtered out. There are six blocks without sanctions address transactions, one of which was dug up by a mine pool, the other was dug up by a mine pool, and the other four were dug up with sanctions. The transaction refers to the transaction of receiving and paying through the address sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Treasury Department. A tool I maintain can extract the list of sanctions addresses from the published list of specially designated nationals. A transaction is not included in the block. There are several reasons for this. Usually, transactions are not transmitted fairly in the network. There is no global memory pool in the network. Each node has its own set of valid transactions. Each pool can also give priority to out-of-band payment transactions, but it can also lower the priority of transactions or filter out transactions. Our goal is to determine whether the mining pool has filtered any of these sanctions transactions or whether there are other possible explanations that lead to these transactions not being included. Please note that the mining pool is free to choose which transactions to include and which not to include. However, it is very important to analyze the anti-censorship characteristics of Bitcoin and know which mines and specific quantities are being filtered. My conclusion is that the report shows that the sum block does not contain sanctions transactions, which may be false positives and do not belong to intentional filtering transactions. However, the transactions not included in the block are likely to be filtered out. The dug-out block was dug up on the year, month and day, which did not include transactions. The transaction merged two input transactions into one output transaction, and one of the input transactions was payment. This address has been listed in the sanctions list on, the size of the transaction is the handling fee paid, and it was just created the day before. When the block was dug up, the transaction had stayed in my node's memory pool for about minutes. It did not depend on the template and block rate distribution of the transaction block in the memory pool at all. Observing the rate distribution of the block, we can find that the priority transactions occupy about the block space, and the total space may be derived from bitcoin transactions. Accelerator gives priority to certain transactions, which means that low-rate transactions, such as transaction expenses from the sanctioned address here, will not enter the block. For this block, I have listed a large merger transaction that did not enter the block, which leads to the conclusion that this transaction was not filtered. It was replaced by other priority transactions. It turns out that the transaction expenses of the same sanctioned address in the block were processed three days later because the dug-up block did not contain transactions. The transaction will be. The transaction inputs are merged into one transaction output, and the address of one of the inputs is this address, which was added to the sanction list on, month, and month. Most of the inputs are multi-signed scripts, which do not contain transaction data. The transaction rate is and does not depend on the transactions in the memory pool. This rate is enough to rank it first among the transactions handled by my Bitcoin core node. However, this transaction and other transactions only stayed in my memory pool for about seconds, so there is probably no chance to put it. Transactions are included in their blocks because they don't know it exists yet. It may take several seconds for transactions to be transmitted, and it will take some time for most mines to push new block templates to miners every second and then switch to new tasks. In addition, tools will draw new block templates every few seconds and make the best match based on the least lost transactions and additional transactions, which makes it possible for new transactions with short time to have false positives, which may last for about seconds. Block browsers also track blocks. The difference between the template and the final block broadcast by miners shows that the transaction was included in their template but not in the block, and it was also marked by them for the latest broadcast transaction, which led to the conclusion that the transaction was not filtered, and it was broadcast too late to be included in the mining operation of the finally found block. In addition, a new block was excavated at the height of the block, and the sanctions transaction was included in the new block, and the block was dug on the month, month and day. Digging out the block and digging out the block on January, each block missed a sanctioned transaction. Each transaction in these transactions merged a multi-signature input into one output, and one input in each transaction was the opposite payment output. This is the same as the merging mode and address discussed in the previous section. All lost transactions do not depend on the transaction block in the memory pool. It contains a sanctioned output. Because it is a multi-signature input, the transaction is quite large for its payment fee. When digging out the block, the transaction has stayed in my node memory pool for nearly hours, and choosing to include the transaction instead of this transaction is also a merger transaction. It combines the inputs into one output but does not include the sanctioned output, but it happens to be larger, because this means that the rate of excluding the transaction is slightly higher. When strictly sorting by the rate, the excluded transaction should be included, but the reality is that the extra block space is unlikely to affect the total cost of the block. The block is sanctioned. The block in which the transaction has not been dug up contains a transaction similar to the merger transaction mentioned above. The size of this transaction is the transaction fee, and the rate is that when the block comes to the node, the transaction has stayed in its memory pool for minutes. It is noteworthy that five transactions with block commitments have been missing in this block, but their own block commitments have been inserted. This often happens before, and this kind of report has been made. In addition, their block contains two large-scale zero-fee transactions and one transaction has been merged. The other transaction before the output is the transaction paid to miners, which is a common operation of the excavated block. Although these additional transactions occupy a lot of block space, there is still enough space to contain the transaction. For this reason, the scale of the transaction should be included in the block. This transaction is marked as deleted, which has a negative impact on their block health indicators. The block does not contain the transaction, which also contains a sanctioned expenditure. This transaction is also a large-scale merger transaction. The fee is the rate when the block reaches the node. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=62976