I am investigating five Bitcoin blocks whose coinbase transactions pay to the same address. I noticed recurring byte patterns in the coinbase scriptSig and would appreciate a technical assessment of whether they could indicate a shared mining template generator or mining infrastructure.
Payout address:
bc1qevfvr7n7hqu56eu5cqunk22nuwds0dkjgqqxe6
Coinbase transaction IDs:
-
9cdc98072e6f7534a279988bd23b1771633eabe783b5ab53ff0c6508268b1927 -
5594e383f4038618694fa09959f22cc9b1d51d68011f28e1b6f3cb3d5f03fb96 -
ad32ea99f1c0c6fa083af58425d54051a7989184fec1c8e49e641d670c98845a -
25b985fbc8bafdf615481445c910ecce0809247c41663d94a408f4c5510688b6 -
2e9f8d0cef299d57cacf0c6d78a8ce690c011d27241c61856b2a7112efa2ce5f
Observed pattern
After the BIP34-encoded block height, three of the transactions share the byte prefix bd c4 9a 9d. In those same three transactions, the bytes d1 97 also occur at the same offset.
The other two transactions do not share this exact pattern.
All five transactions pay to the same output address, but I understand that this alone does not prove common ownership or establish whether the blocks were mined solo or through a pool.
Questions
-
Could these recurring bytes be associated with a known mining implementation, coinbase construction method, or block-template generator?
-
How likely is this pattern to be coincidental, given the number of transactions observed?
-
Which additional fields or on-chain characteristics would be most useful to compare? For example, block version, timestamp, nonce, transaction selection, witness commitment, or coinbase structure.
-
Is there a reliable way to distinguish solo mining from pool mining using public block data alone in a case like this?
I would appreciate any reproducible analysis, references to relevant source code, or suggestions for further investigation. I am particularly interested in evidence that could be independently verified.
If this topic would be more appropriate in another category, please let me know and I’m sorry. I would appreciate any guidance on where to direct this question.
Thank you for your time.