A table on the network page: each miner's share of blocks, what the chain paid
it, what it holds, what it has sent on, and to how many distinct addresses.
Built to answer a concern without ever being the thing that makes the
accusation. There is no badge, no flag and no word like "delinquent" anywhere in
it. What earns it its place is comparison — one miner's recipient count says
almost nothing, and beside its neighbours' it says a great deal — so the reader
draws the conclusion and the site lays out the evidence and names its limits.
Three limits are on the page, not in a footnote:
- an operator may hold several addresses, settle off-chain, or be a solo miner
keeping what it earned, which is the ordinary case and unremarkable
- `sent on` counts only transfers out of the address the chain pays, so an
operator distributing from a different wallet shows nothing
- the name column is the weakest and comes from telemetry rather than the chain.
There is no such thing as a "pool" here: the word appears only inside a name
an operator chose for its own node
`holds` is chain state and `mined`/`sent on`/`recipients` are over the indexed
range, which the note spells out — on a partially indexed chain a miner appears
to hold far more than it ever mined, and that discrepancy looks exactly like the
thing the table is for.
The window is fixed at 100,800 blocks rather than carried from the route: the
window selector is hidden on this page, so the route's value would mean the
shares silently reflect whatever span the reader last chose on the standings,
invisibly and differently for two people reading the same page. The longest
window is also the right one for the question — what a miner did with its
rewards is about the chain's history, not its last hour.
Refs #17
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jp6a8EDar9ueEhAxzep4V5
rob thijssen
df2306660a
