After an unusual two-block reorganization occurred on the Bitcoin network, where Foundry USA achieved an impressive seven-block winning streak, concerns about potential misconduct began to arise within the community.
In response, a Bitcoin researcher has intervened to clarify these misconceptions.
The observed anomaly was simply a result of normal network behavior rather than a coordinated “selfish-mining” scheme.
The competition at block height 941880
As reported by U.Today, the network temporarily diverged into two competing chains at block height 941880.
AntPool successfully mined block 941881, followed closely by ViaBTC with block 941882 on that same chain.
At the same time, Foundry USA produced its own versions of blocks 941881 and 941882.
This situation led to a brief period where there were two valid chains of equal length until Foundry USA broke this tie by continuing its successful run with blocks 941883, 941884, and finally 941885.
This sequence resulted in AntPool’s and ViaBTC’s blocks being orphaned. Ultimately, Foundry triumphed in an extraordinary seven-block series.
The debunking of selfish mining theory
Foundry appeared to generate multiple blocks to surpass its rivals; consequently, some observers hastily accused the pool of engaging in “selfish mining.”
A theoretical selfish mining attack would involve a miner deliberately withholding valid blocks from public visibility in order to gain an advantage when finding subsequent blocks while squandering the hash power of competing pools.
The researcher argues that data does not support this malicious interpretation. If Foundry had indeed attempted such an attack on selfish mining principles, it was executed very poorly due to unfavorable economic incentives involved.
It is important to highlight that this incident transpired during a period characterized by low transaction fees. The two reorganized blocks yielded only a minuscule sum of approximately 0.025 BTC in transaction fees for Foundry.
Additonally , on-chain analysis indicates that Foundry actually spent additional time mining atop AntPool’s and ViaBTC’s contributions before reverting back to its own chain—an unlikely strategy for someone aiming for secrecy through withheld chains.
The researcher attributes these occurrences primarily to standard network latency along with specific commands used within Bitcoin Core software .