It seems to me that the problem is not with the bitcoin client, but rather the "tag address" feature at blockchain. If the tag is deleted wouldn't that remove the incentive to do this?
Is someone able to explain why these will not be confirmed? I agree they are annoying, but what makes them invalid?
Topic: bitwars.org spamming the blockchain network with 0.00000001 transactions (Read 6973 times)
February 14, 2014, 09:06:01 AM
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
February 12, 2014, 09:47:18 AM
I received 8 of those today starting with 1SochiWw and 1Enjoy1 btc 0.00 each and non of them confirmed.
They wont get confirmed. Thousands of people got them by the looks of things.
February 12, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
Same here ... and they keep coming in...
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s12/sh/ddc814f7-1b81-43c2-8c66-efd7bbd4cf72/7a8a80e4bfacf59ba9e3df926b42c1ce/res/a1e9bc80-4991-4402-874c-3f9edc30f6e4/skitch.png
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s12/sh/ddc814f7-1b81-43c2-8c66-efd7bbd4cf72/7a8a80e4bfacf59ba9e3df926b42c1ce/res/a1e9bc80-4991-4402-874c-3f9edc30f6e4/skitch.png
February 12, 2014, 12:13:00 AM
I received 8 of those today starting with 1SochiWw and 1Enjoy1 btc 0.00 each and non of them confirmed.
February 12, 2014, 12:00:51 AM
I got one today also but for only one wallet. It seems that if your payment address is out in the open you will receive this. My main wallet was not affected. I have a side wallet that takes in payments and one that stores. The one that stores did not get one.
February 11, 2014, 11:51:22 PM
We figured that this is the issue, and for those two transactions to have the same weird 1 Satoshi in them might be all circumstantial and there could be nothing more into it. We hope at least... Our system has been ignoring those transaction with invalid hashes and processing the valid ones accordingly.
Our system has exactly the same problem, 1 satoshi spam automatically causing double spending attempts for larger deposits. Can't quite figure out what's there to play with, but it sure doesn't smell good.
February 11, 2014, 10:49:55 PM
Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?
I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?
Doesn't matter, they still burden the network.
I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?
Smart, but not ethical.
1% do not check the link. Maybe 10 people do. None of them will buy anything.
February 11, 2014, 07:29:47 PM
maybe if i received it from 1Sex* i'd feel a little bit better 
February 11, 2014, 06:30:09 PM
i received two Satoshi transactions:
1SochiWwFFySPjQoi2biVftXn8NRPCSQC
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z
hope this will be fixed soon
1SochiWwFFySPjQoi2biVftXn8NRPCSQC
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z
hope this will be fixed soon
February 11, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
take a look at this https://blockchain.info/tx-index/d2a97fea6856d3ba5d64d15333dac2fa36ca84e2d0c7b9e24e6fbf52ca9ee168
these people sent 1 satoshi to a lot of addresses...
received yesterday 0,00000001 from unkown address 1SochiWwFFySPjQoi2biVftXn8NRPCSQC
these people sent 1 satoshi to a lot of addresses...
received yesterday 0,00000001 from unkown address 1SochiWwFFySPjQoi2biVftXn8NRPCSQC
February 11, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
We figured that this is the issue, and for those two transactions to have the same weird 1 Satoshi in them might be all circumstantial and there could be nothing more into it. We hope at least... Our system has been ignoring those transaction with invalid hashes and processing the valid ones accordingly.
Our system has exactly the same problem, 1 satoshi spam automatically causing double spending attempts for larger deposits. Can't quite figure out what's there to play with, but it sure doesn't smell good. global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
February 11, 2014, 11:00:36 AM
I got 0.00000001BTC from this address: https://blockchain.info/address/1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z
i have one of these and one that starts "1Sochi" , this type of spam will discourage new users and work as FUD for those trying to overstate the TM issue. it isn't 'bad' technically, but from a PR angle, it is badI'm sure if it becomes a problem it'll be dealt with somehow. Does anyone know how many people they've actually spammed?
February 11, 2014, 10:56:26 AM
I got 0.00000001BTC from this address: https://blockchain.info/address/1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z
i have one of these and one that starts "1Sochi" , this type of spam will discourage new users and work as FUD for those trying to overstate the TM issue. it isn't 'bad' technically, but from a PR angle, it is bad global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
February 11, 2014, 10:52:43 AM
It would certainly need to be a receiver option because e-book authors and some other press outlets make micro transactions for materials viewed and/or downloaded with the thought that the content creator would accumulate a useable sum.
Yeah, it wouldn't be a good idea restricting it altogether, but an option to block certain amounts or addresses could be useful.
February 11, 2014, 10:39:27 AM
I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?
Smart, but not ethical.
Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?
Not that I know off, but I could be wrong. I know some addresses and associated addresses can be flagged in case of double spending, but I'm not entirely sure how/if they can be blocked from sending/receiving. If they can, the devs would have probably thought about blocking the SR seized coins with the FBI to prevent a mass sell off
Why would they do that? That's just asking for trouble. What I was thinking was more along the lines of being able to set your wallet to not receive dust etc.
That was a joke ^^
ummm, not really, it's like asking your bank to accept anything above $5 to your account... I think money is money.
But imagine somebody throwing $0.05 under your front door so you open to find a salesman trying to sell you a Schticky?
February 11, 2014, 10:22:52 AM
Why would they do that? That's just asking for trouble. What I was thinking was more along the lines of being able to set your wallet to not receive dust etc.
It would certainly need to be a receiver option because e-book authors and some other press outlets make micro transactions for materials viewed and/or downloaded with the thought that the content creator would accumulate a useable sum. global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
February 11, 2014, 10:09:24 AM
I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?
Smart, but not ethical.
Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?
Not that I know off, but I could be wrong. I know some addresses and associated addresses can be flagged in case of double spending, but I'm not entirely sure how/if they can be blocked from sending/receiving. If they can, the devs would have probably thought about blocking the SR seized coins with the FBI to prevent a mass sell off
Why would they do that? That's just asking for trouble. What I was thinking was more along the lines of being able to set your wallet to not receive dust etc.
February 11, 2014, 10:02:07 AM
Couldn't this also be a way of confirming addresses that are currently active by tracking the time sent till inquiry? possibly capturing IP of linked inquiries to an address used exclusively to this campaign.
February 11, 2014, 09:23:41 AM
I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?
Smart, but not ethical.
Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?
Not that I know off, but I could be wrong. I know some addresses and associated addresses can be flagged in case of double spending, but I'm not entirely sure how/if they can be blocked from sending/receiving. If they can, the devs would have probably thought about blocking the SR seized coins with the FBI to prevent a mass sell off
February 11, 2014, 09:20:06 AM
Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?
I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?
Transaction without fees do end up confirming... eventually; if no double spending was detected.
Perfect Example!
Quote
Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which may be double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to or from this address.
Blockchain Link
Jump to: