Neighbourhood Pool Watch: May 24th 2015 Block Maker Statistics

Changelog:

Nil.

Errorlog:

Nil.

Notifications:

Nil.

0. Block makers take a hashrate hit
Lots of block makers have lost 20 - 30% of their total hashrate this week - anyone have any ideas why?

Solved block statistics table. This table lists all statistics that can be derived from the number of blocks a hashrate contributor has solved for the past week. Block attributions are either from primary sources such as those claimed by a particular pool website, or secondary sources such as coinbase signatures, or known generation addresses. When dependent on secondary sources only, data may be inaccurate and miss some blocks if a particular block-solver has gone to some trouble to hide solved blocks. This will result in an underestimate of the block-solver hashrate.

Note that actual pool hashrates when derived from shares submitted per unit time will be more accurate than the hashrate estimates given in this table.

"BitAffNet" is Bitcoin Affiliate Network

"Dot pool" and "Day pool" are block makers that are unknown, but that have enduring coinbase signatures, address clustering, or generation address reuse similarities. However, since they are unknown and unclaimed we can't be sure if these block makers are actually part of another known block maker.

"Unknown" is not an entity but the group of blocks to which I cannot give attribution using the methods given above.

Reused but unknown generation addresses

Unknown generation addresses that are not reused are probably solominers or private mining concerns that don't have share-holders wanting to follow transactions. However, reused addresses are probably from hash contributors that do not wish to remain anonymous. These need to be identified so they can be removed from the "Unknown" group. I'm not interested in identifying those who wish to remain completely anonymous, so I'm not trying to trace originating IP addresses (as Blockchain.info does).

Blocks solved by unknown but re-used generation addresses May 17 2015 to May 23 2015
Unknown recurring generation address	Blocks solved this week	Percentage of network	Percentage of unknown	Estimate of hashrate	Blocks solved ever
1NY15MK947MLzmPUa2gL7UgyR8prLh2xfu	11	1.11 %	27.50 %	3796 Thps	58
1CdJi2xRTXJF6CEJqNHYyQDNEcM3X7fUhD	10	1.01 %	25.00 %	3450 Thps	93
1Ar2gRkt1u6k4PToeeTKm1KGmtR2GRA1wL	6	0.60 %	15.00 %	2080 Thps	15
1BwZeHJo7b7M2op7VDfYnsmcpXsUYEcVHm	5	0.50 %	12.50 %	1733 Thps	255
18UBaMPq6FQfXnKT19rXc8bFFFwQz52Bc1	3	0.30 %	7.50 %	1040 Thps	5
19sn5QHEr5AMxJyUeaWR6VX9iDTvByTSfo	2	0.20 %	5.00 %	693 Thps	2
1GcF7j3YH8Qs8hvNEe7zbrQZftMU6sRLfu	2	0.20 %	5.00 %	693 Thps	565

Hashrate distribution: Stacked histogram percentage of network blocks

A visual representation of the "Percentage of network" data aggregated in the table.

Hashrate distribution: Actual and cumulative percentage of network blocks

Another visualisation of the data in the table. The unshaded section indicates block makers with the largest hashrates that control 50% of the network between them.

Hashrate distribution: Heatmap of historical percentage of network blocks attributable to block makers.

The data in the above hashrate distribution histogram is a subset of the weekly data data below.

Hashrate distribution: Daily proportion of network for current block makers.

The next three plots group hashrate distribution into three tiers: The block makers with the largest proportion of the network, block makers with an average proportion of the network, and block makers with the smallest proportion of the network.

Because the data is a daily summary, the kernel smoothing shows quite clearly the variance in hashrate distribution that occurs in block making. It will also show the intra-week hashrate movements which were previously unavailable.

Comparison of transaction fee per block

Block makers that consistently perform better than average are attempting to earn as much from each block as possible, which probably means more transactions per block and a better functioning network.

Block makers that consistently earn less than average transactions per block are either including too many low priority (no fee) transactions or are trying to reduce their orphan rate by reducing the size of their blocks.

Historical centralisation of bitcoin network block creation

This chart shows the changes in the amount of the network controlled by the largest block maker, second largest, and so on up to the twentieth largest (should that number of block makers exist during the week the estimate was made).