History

🚀 Block #625779 mined by ViaBTC:

• Timestamp: 1586789385
• Total Transactions: 2749
• Size: 1.36 MB
• Weight: 3993006 units
• Top Fee TX: 997,365 sats

Wallet Types:

• OP_RETURN: 1
• P2PKH: 19
• P2SH: 27
• V0_P2WPKH: 2
• V0_P2WSH: 2

Interesting block with significant transactions! #B

To determine if the current block (height 851520) was filled to capacity, we can examine its size and weight against Bitcoin's protocol limits.

The block has a size of 1,606,637 bytes and a weight of 3,993,119 units. The maximum block size is typically constrained to 1 MB (1,000,000 bytes), while the weight limit is 4,000,000 units due to the weight-based block size limit introduced with SegWit.

Analysis:

• Size: The block’s size exceeds the typical 1 MB limit.
• Weight: The weight is just under the 4,000,000 units cap.

Conclusion:

While the block size is above the conventional limit, the actual weight is close to the maximum. Thus, while it was not filled to typical byte capacity, it maximized its weight allocation. Blocks often prioritize weight due to SegWit, meaning it operated efficiently within the parameters set by Bitcoin's rules.

Several interesting aspects stand out in the current block (Height: 82961):

1. Transaction Fees: All transactions in this block (totaling four) exhibit zero fees. This lack of transaction fees is unusual, as miners typically prioritize transactions with higher fees. It raises questions about the economic incentives for miners and the usage patterns of users at this time.

2. Miner Consistency: The block was mined by a single miner (address: 1) while the previous and next blocks were mined by another consistent miner (1J). This could hint at certain miner preferences or strategies in block production.

3. Coinbase Outputs: The block's coinbase transaction resulted in a standard output of 5,000,000,000 sats. If this was a consistent pattern across these blocks, it indicates a steady block reward without any fluctuations that might reflect different miner strategies or blockchain adjustments.

4. Wallet Types: The presence of legacy P2PKH wallets (5 instances) alongside full public key (P2PK) usage shows a mix of older and newer Bitcoin transaction types, reflecting a user base that includes both legacy and more modern wallet architectures.

In summary, the zero transaction fees, miner consistency, steady coinbase value, and wallet type mix all contribute to an intriguing snapshot of block 82961. These factors could hint at broader trends in user behavior or miner strategies during this period.

Several interesting aspects emerge from the current block (height 832335):

1. High Coinbase Value: The coinbase value of 662,063,424 sats is notably higher compared to the preceding block's 648,579,839 sats. This trend could indicate increased mining rewards or a possible change in fees collected.

2. Transactions and Size: The current block contains 3,025 transactions, reflecting an increase from 2,620 in the previous block. This growth in transaction volume can indicate heightened network activity, possibly relating to a surge in user demand or specific use cases triggering larger transaction throughput.

3. Top Transaction Fees: Notable fees in this block are lower than the top fee from the previous block, which was 288,000 sats. The highest fee recorded here is 148,200 sats, suggesting a shift in transaction pricing dynamics. This could imply a reduction in competition for block space or a less congested network environment.

4. Minor OP_RETURN Activity: The block includes one data-carrying transaction via OP_RETURN, consistent with the previous block but indicative of ongoing interest in embedding metadata on-chain, despite a lower number of such transactions overall.

5. Miner Diversity: The miner for this block is identified as "O C0B," showing diversification in mining pools. This can affect network security and decentralization by distributing mining power among different entities.

These elements collectively paint a picture of shifting dynamics within the Bitcoin ecosystem, warranting close observation as network conditions evolve.

Based on the provided block data, there's no explicit transaction information regarding the age of the coins being spent. To determine if any transactions are spending very old coins, one would typically examine the inputs of the transactions and check their previous outputs for age.

The block includes a total of 101 transactions with no direct indication of the specific inputs. If you have access to a Bitcoin block explorer or can analyze the transactions using a script, you could identify the inputs and check their output times to find any coins that were created a long time ago.

Without that detailed input data, I cannot confirm if any transactions in the current block involve very old coins. If you need further assistance on how to analyze those transactions, feel free to ask!