# Second Look at Weak Blocks

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/second-look-at-weak-blocks/805>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Created:** [April 16, 2024, 4:51pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/second-look-at-weak-blocks/805 "2024-04-16T16:51:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 19

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Stewart\_5](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/chris_stewart_5/32/296_2.png) [@Chris\_Stewart\_5](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/Chris_Stewart_5)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2024, 5:01pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/second-look-at-weak-blocks/805/19 "2024-06-18T17:01:58Z")

</div>

So if I understand this proposal, the problem is:

> Divergent mempools due to local mempool policy across the network increase latency for block relay.

To solve this problem, this proposal introduces _another_ data structure (could you say `PoW Mempool`?) that holds a set of transactions that miner is attempting to _actively_ construct a block from?

If I understand correctly, this would increase resource requirements for running a node (`-maxmempool` would be circumvented?), for the benefit of reducing block relay latency.

Maybe to end with a controversial question, could this just replace the gossip based mempool (in favor of the `PoW Mempool`) in the future? What ramifications would that have for the network?

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/second-look-at-weak-blocks/805)._