BTW, that quoted message (freeze in the coins tab) is better than freezing addresses when it comes with "Dust Attacks"
since the usual targets are those frequently used, have been reusing and publicly displayed addresses.
If the user has frozen that address, he wont be able to spend his legitimate balance that was received through it.
I had a thought about choosing if freezing coins (UTXO) or address.
I chose to show the "freeze address" methodology because I supposed the dust attack would affect empty addresses.
If a dust attack hits an address with a positive balance it is no major damage, I think: the dust comes together in the address with some other UTXO's, so it would have been trivial to follow those coins without the dust in the first place. Dust acts as a not-so-cheap marker of your public UTXO's. You know you are bein tracked anyway on the blockchain, so you act consciously.
If a dust attack hits an empty address, you can actually damage your privacy, if you are not aware of this attack. If you spend from that address, you are probably going to use the dusted UTXO with your other UTXO's, effectively linking a "past" address of yours with your current transaction. This is very dangerous.
This is why I chose to select the "freeze address" procedure: I want to freeze dust on "empty" addresses only, because I think dust in addresses with UTXO's is not so dangerous, after all.
Please let me know if you dissent from this, so I can elaborate more in the guide.
EDIT:
I completely forgot about that message of yours here:
The attacker might be using a software that follows those specific UTXO, not the addresses themselves nor their previous outputs.
If he's sending more than once to some addresses, he might be trying to increase the transaction fee when the victim tries to consolidate or "spend-all" by adding additional inputs.
Or just trolling/advertising a fork (together with the previous reasons) since the first five addresses are proof-of-burn addresses with vague meaning.
Yes, it could be the case, but it looks highly un effective tactic. I really don get it why an user should do that.
If I had received those transactions, the last thing I would have done would have been, if I ever had realised the presence of such an "hidden message", it would have been to go and check that website.
If the objective would have been a "spam attack" to increase the network fees, well there would have been other, more efficient ways to do so.