# Stats on compact block reconstructions

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/stats-on-compact-block-reconstructions/1052>\
**Category:** Protocol Design\
**Created:** [August 2, 2024, 11:58am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/stats-on-compact-block-reconstructions/1052 "2024-08-02T11:58:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 26

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![0xB10C](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/0xb10c/32/15_2.png) [@0xB10C](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/0xB10C)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2025, 4:06pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/stats-on-compact-block-reconstructions/1052/26 "2025-04-08T16:06:52Z")

</div>

Yeah, good question. I don’t have data on this yet, but I think it makes sense to look at the extra\_pools of nodes and see if they are similar or different. My assumption is that they aren’t too similar.

> So if we consider that our peers would have the same txs in their mempool then logically we would consider that our peers would have the same txs in their extra pool, no?

A few arguments against extra pool similarity are:

- the extra pool is quite small with only 100 transactions in it by default
- mempool transactions are relayed with the hope that mempools converge, extra pool transactions are stopped at their first hop and aren’t relayed
- you might have peer that is sending a lot of transactions you’ll reject and put into your extra pool, but I might not have a connection to this peer - our extra pools will be quite different

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/stats-on-compact-block-reconstructions/1052)._