Return to Answer

The term for this is "orphan rate" or "fork rate", as each created block which doesn't make it into the eventually accepted chain is effectively a tiny chain fork that doesn't get extended. Such blocks are sometimes called orphan blocks (though that term is a misnomer).

These forks occur when two blocks are found nearly simultaneously, where the later miner was still working on the previous block.

It is very hard to get exact statistics on this, for the simple reason that nodes in the network do not relay blocks which aren't considered part of the main chain. If a node receives a block at height H, and then another one at the same height H, the latter will not be considered part of the main chain unless it is extended first. Thus, generally such a fork will involve a condition where one part of the network hears about one block first, and another part of the network that hears about the other one first. Nodes on the boundary between the two will generally hear about both immediately. Nodes that heard the losing block first will eventually hear about both. Nodes that heard about the winning block first - generally the largest subset - will typically not ever hear about the losing block.

Thus, the best we can do is gather statistics from forks that well-connected nodes saw, though even that will be necessarily an underestimate: the "worst" forks don't propagate at all, not even past the mining pool that created them, and thus will not show up in anyone's statistics.

On my own rather well-connected node, I've seen 13 forks in the past 4 months (since block 800000). The https://fork.observer website lists forks they see on their nodes, which currently shows a similar number over that timespan. I believe https://blockchain.info used to list forks somewhere in the past, but I can't find that anymore.

If we use that number as a lower bound, the answer to your question would be at least 0.07%. The number can change wildly over longer time periods though, as it depends on geographic distribution of miners, their connectivity, and the technologies used to connect them (e.g. BIP152 compact blocks helped reduce latency between miners, and the public FIBRE network while it was still operational helped more).

The term for this is "orphan rate" or "fork rate", as each created block which doesn't make it into the eventually accepted chain is effectively a tiny chain fork that doesn't get extended. Such blocks are sometimes called orphan blocks (though that term is a misnomer).

These forks occur when two blocks are found nearly simultaneously, where the later miner was still working on the previous block. The better the latency between miners, the shorter the time between the blocks needs to be for this to occur.

It is very hard to get exact statistics on this, for the simple reason that nodes in the network do not relay blocks which aren't considered part of the main chain. If a node receives a block at height H, and then another one at the same height H, the latter will not be considered part of the main chain unless it is extended first. Thus, generally such a fork will involve a condition where one part of the network hears about one block first, and another part of the network that hears about the other one first. Nodes on the boundary between the two will generally hear about both immediately. Nodes that heard the losing block first will eventually hear about both. Nodes that heard about the winning block first - generally the largest subset - will typically not ever hear about the losing block.

Thus, the best we can do is gather statistics from forks that well-connected nodes saw, though even that will be necessarily an underestimate: the "worst" forks don't propagate at all, not even past the mining pool that created them, and thus will not show up in anyone's statistics.

On my own rather well-connected node, I've seen 13 forks in the past 4 months (since block 800000). The https://fork.observer website lists forks they see on their nodes, which currently shows a similar number over that timespan. I believe https://blockchain.info used to list forks somewhere in the past, but I can't find that anymore.

If we use that number as a lower bound, the answer to your question would be at least 0.07%. The number can change wildly over longer time periods though, as it depends on the composition of blocks, the geographic distribution of miners, their connectivity, and the technologies used to connect them (e.g. BIP152 compact blocks helped reduce latency between miners, and the public FIBRE network while it was still operational helped more).

The term for this is "orphan rate" or "fork rate", as each created block which doesn't make it into the eventually accepted chain is effectively a tiny chain fork that doesn't get extended. Such blocks are sometimes called orphan blocks (though that term is a misnomer).

These forks occur when two blocks are found nearly simultaneously, where the later miner was still working on the previous block.

It is very hard to get exact statistics on this, for the simple reason that nodes in the network do not relay blocks which aren't considered part of the main chain. If a node receives a block at height H, and then another one at the same height H, the latter will not be considered part of the main chain unless it is extended first. Thus, generally such a fork will involve a condition where one part of the network hears about one block first, and another part of the network that hears about the other one first. Nodes on the boundary between the two will generally hear about both immediately. Nodes that heard the losing block first will eventually hear about both. Nodes that heard about the winning block first - generally the largest subset - will typically not ever hear about the losing block.

Thus, the best we can do is gather statistics from forks that well-connected nodes saw, though even that will be necessarily an underestimate: the "worst" forks don't propagate at all, not even past the mining pool that created them, and thus will not show up in anyone's statistics.

On my own rather well-connected node, I've seen 13 forks in the past 4 months (since block 800000). The https://fork.observer website lists forks they see on their nodes, which currently shows a similar number over that timespan. I believe https://blockchain.info used to list forks somewhere in the past, but I can't find that anymore.

If we use that number as a lower bound, the answer to your question would be at least 0.07%. The number can change wildly over longer time periods though, as it depends on geographic distribution of miners, their connectivity, and the technologies used to connect them (e.g. BIP152 compact blocks helped reduce latency between miners, and the public FIBRE network while it was still operations helped more).

The term for this is "orphan rate" or "fork rate", as each created block which doesn't make it into the eventually accepted chain is effectively a tiny chain fork that doesn't get extended. Such blocks are sometimes called orphan blocks (though that term is a misnomer).

These forks occur when two blocks are found nearly simultaneously, where the later miner was still working on the previous block.

It is very hard to get exact statistics on this, for the simple reason that nodes in the network do not relay blocks which aren't considered part of the main chain. If a node receives a block at height H, and then another one at the same height H, the latter will not be considered part of the main chain unless it is extended first. Thus, generally such a fork will involve a condition where one part of the network hears about one block first, and another part of the network that hears about the other one first. Nodes on the boundary between the two will generally hear about both immediately. Nodes that heard the losing block first will eventually hear about both. Nodes that heard about the winning block first - generally the largest subset - will typically not ever hear about the losing block.

Thus, the best we can do is gather statistics from forks that well-connected nodes saw, though even that will be necessarily an underestimate: the "worst" forks don't propagate at all, not even past the mining pool that created them, and thus will not show up in anyone's statistics.

On my own rather well-connected node, I've seen 13 forks in the past 4 months (since block 800000). The https://fork.observer website lists forks they see on their nodes, which currently shows a similar number over that timespan. I believe https://blockchain.info used to list forks somewhere in the past, but I can't find that anymore.

If we use that number as a lower bound, the answer to your question would be at least 0.07%. The number can change wildly over longer time periods though, as it depends on geographic distribution of miners, their connectivity, and the technologies used to connect them (e.g. BIP152 compact blocks helped reduce latency between miners, and the public FIBRE network while it was still operational helped more).

The term for this is "orphan rate" or "fork rate", as each created block which doesn't make it into the eventually accepted chain is effectively a tiny chain fork that doesn't get extended. Such blocks are sometimes called orphan blocks (though that term is a misnomer).

These forks occur when two blocks are found nearly simultaneously, where the later miner was still working on the previous block.

It is very hard to get exact statistics on this, for the simple reason that nodes in the network do not relay blocks which aren't considered part of the main chain. If a node receives a block at height H, and then another one at the same height H, the latter will not be considered part of the main chain unless it is extended first. Thus, generally such a fork will involve a condition where one part of the network hears about one block first, and another part of the network that hears about the other one first. Nodes on the boundary between the two will generally hear about both immediately. Nodes that heard the losing block first will eventually hear about both. Nodes that heard about the winning block first - generally the largest subset - will typically not ever hear about the losing block.

Thus, the best we can do is gather statistics from forks that well-connected nodes saw, though even that will be necessarily an underestimate: the "worst" forks don't propagate at all, not even past the mining pool that created them, and thus will not show up in anyone's statistics.

On my own node, I've seen 13 forks in the past 4 months. The https://fork.observer website lists forks they see on their nodes. I believe https://blockchain.info used to list forks somewhere in the past, but I can't find that anymore.

The term for this is "orphan rate" or "fork rate", as each created block which doesn't make it into the eventually accepted chain is effectively a tiny chain fork that doesn't get extended. Such blocks are sometimes called orphan blocks (though that term is a misnomer).

These forks occur when two blocks are found nearly simultaneously, where the later miner was still working on the previous block.

It is very hard to get exact statistics on this, for the simple reason that nodes in the network do not relay blocks which aren't considered part of the main chain. If a node receives a block at height H, and then another one at the same height H, the latter will not be considered part of the main chain unless it is extended first. Thus, generally such a fork will involve a condition where one part of the network hears about one block first, and another part of the network that hears about the other one first. Nodes on the boundary between the two will generally hear about both immediately. Nodes that heard the losing block first will eventually hear about both. Nodes that heard about the winning block first - generally the largest subset - will typically not ever hear about the losing block.

Thus, the best we can do is gather statistics from forks that well-connected nodes saw, though even that will be necessarily an underestimate: the "worst" forks don't propagate at all, not even past the mining pool that created them, and thus will not show up in anyone's statistics.

On my own rather well-connected node, I've seen 13 forks in the past 4 months (since block 800000). The https://fork.observer website lists forks they see on their nodes, which currently shows a similar number over that timespan. I believe https://blockchain.info used to list forks somewhere in the past, but I can't find that anymore.

If we use that number as a lower bound, the answer to your question would be at least 0.07%. The number can change wildly over longer time periods though, as it depends on geographic distribution of miners, their connectivity, and the technologies used to connect them (e.g. BIP152 compact blocks helped reduce latency between miners, and the public FIBRE network while it was still operations helped more).