Bitcoin’s blockchain operates under a strict set of technical constraints — each block is limited to 1MB in size, and the proof-of-work difficulty is calibrated to produce one block approximately every 10 minutes. In theory, miners have a strong economic incentive to fill each block with as many transactions as possible, since they earn both the block reward (currently 12.5 BTC at the time of this writing) and transaction fees from users. As Bitcoin adoption grows and network activity increases, we would expect average block sizes to approach this 1MB limit.
Yet, surprisingly, empty blocks — blocks containing only the coinbase transaction — continue to appear on the blockchain. These are not rare anomalies. While mining an empty block offers no additional speed, cost advantage, or computational benefit over mining a full block, certain mining pools historically produce them more frequently than others. For instance, pools like BitFury, BitClub Network, and Kano CKPool have maintained near-zero rates of empty block production.
This raises a critical question: why would rational, profit-driven miners choose to mine blocks that carry no transaction fees and contribute little immediate value to the network?
👉 Discover how modern mining strategies are shaping Bitcoin's future performance.
What Are Empty Blocks in Bitcoin Mining?
An empty block isn't truly "empty" — it contains exactly one transaction: the coinbase transaction, through which the miner claims their block reward. It does not include any other transactions from the mempool (the pool of pending transactions). Despite their name, these blocks are valid and accepted by the network.
The act of mining such blocks is not inherently malicious or technically simpler than mining full blocks. The computational work required — solving the cryptographic puzzle — remains identical regardless of how many transactions are included.
So why do they occur?
The primary reason lies in network propagation delays and operational efficiency. When a new block is discovered by one mining pool, it takes time for that information to propagate across the global network. Other pools must:
- Download the full block data
- Validate all included transactions
- Construct a new candidate block based on updated state
During this brief window — often just seconds — there's a risk of wasted hashing power if miners wait idly. To avoid downtime, many pools immediately begin mining on top of the newly received block header, using only the coinbase transaction. This allows them to stay productive while their systems process the full block contents.
This behavior is sometimes referred to as SPV mining (Simplified Payment Verification mining), where miners proceed without fully validating prior transactions. Data from blockchain analytics platforms like Kaiko show that empty blocks often follow valid blocks closely in time, especially when the mempool is far from empty — suggesting missed opportunities for fee collection.
Why Has the Rate of Empty Blocks Declined?
Over recent months, the frequency of empty blocks has noticeably decreased across major mining pools. While timing varies between operators, this trend correlates strongly with improvements in mining software — particularly updates introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.12 and later versions.
These upgrades significantly reduced the delay between receiving a new block and being able to mine a new, fully populated one. Key technical enhancements include:
1. Precomputed Validation Work
Miners can now precompute parts of the verification process for transactions in the mempool. Instead of recalculating everything upon block arrival, much of the groundwork is done ahead of time, slashing preparation latency.
2. Optimized Relay Networks
Improvements in how nodes relay transactions — including compact block protocols and prioritized propagation — allow miners to receive and integrate new transaction data faster. This reduces reliance on temporary empty-block strategies during transition periods.
3. Enhanced GetBlockTemplate (GBT) Protocol
The GBT interface enables individual miners or pools to request optimized templates for the next block. With richer data and better control over block composition, miners can build valid, transaction-rich blocks almost instantly after a new block is confirmed.
These developments collectively minimize the “dead time” that once justified empty block mining, making it less appealing even as a short-term stopgap.
👉 Learn how protocol-level innovations are improving Bitcoin’s scalability and miner efficiency.
Is Mining Empty Blocks Harmful to the Network?
Critics argue that empty blocks undermine Bitcoin’s core purpose: secure, decentralized transaction processing. By failing to include pending transactions, empty blocks:
- Reduce network throughput
- Increase user wait times
- Waste scarce block space
- Transfer economic advantage away from fee-earning miners
Some view this as a form of value extraction, where miners benefit from block rewards without contributing proportional utility — effectively accelerating inflationary pressure (via fixed supply issuance) while denying users timely service.
However, others suggest a counterintuitive benefit: decentralization preservation.
When a large pool mines a block, they gain an informational head start — they already know which transactions to include in the next block. Smaller miners must download and verify the previous block before proceeding, putting them at a disadvantage. By mining empty blocks immediately, smaller players can remain competitive during this synchronization gap, reducing the centralizing effect of information asymmetry.
Moreover, technological progress continues to narrow this window. The declining rate of empty blocks shows that market incentives and protocol improvements naturally push behavior toward greater efficiency.
Will Empty Blocks Disappear Completely?
While unlikely to vanish entirely due to edge cases (e.g., network congestion or software bugs), several long-term trends make empty blocks increasingly unattractive:
- Block rewards halve every four years, reducing the relative value of the coinbase payout.
- Transaction fees are becoming a larger share of miner income, incentivizing full blocks.
- Layer-2 solutions like the Lightning Network increase off-chain throughput, but also increase on-chain settlement demand — leading to higher fee competition during peak times.
- Future protocol upgrades may introduce mechanisms to disincentivize empty blocks, such as requiring a hash of recent transactions in the coinbase field.
As Bitcoin evolves from a store of value to a mature settlement layer, maximizing block utility will become even more critical.
👉 Explore how evolving miner economics could shape Bitcoin’s next decade.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What exactly is an empty block?
A: An empty block contains only the coinbase transaction (which awards the miner their BTC reward) and no other user transactions. It is valid but underutilizes block space.
Q: Do empty blocks offer any advantage to miners?
A: Not directly. They don’t require less work or yield higher rewards than full blocks. Miners use them temporarily to avoid downtime during network synchronization.
Q: Are empty blocks a sign of malicious behavior?
A: Generally no. Most result from technical delays rather than intentional profit-seeking at the network’s expense.
Q: How common are empty blocks today?
A: Much less common than in earlier years. Improvements in Bitcoin Core and mining infrastructure have significantly reduced their occurrence.
Q: Can empty blocks be prevented by protocol rules?
A: Yes — future upgrades could enforce minimum transaction inclusion or penalize empty blocks, though current market forces already discourage them.
Q: Do empty blocks affect my Bitcoin transaction speed?
A: Indirectly. Each empty block delays confirmation for pending transactions, potentially increasing wait times during high-demand periods.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin mining, empty blocks, mining pools, transaction fees, blockchain efficiency, proof-of-work, mempool, Bitcoin Core