Topic: How many people have received random .00000001 transactions to their wallets? - page 3. (Read 14176 times)

Good advertising idea. Is this fixed on blockchain?

It was just dustspam that never got confirmed by the blockchain. It was linked to a gambling site.

If the launch, I will participate in.Keep up the good work.

I didn't received any such amount, I don't think it's an act of kindness rather just an attempt to spam the blockchain and what purpose would that solve? I have no idea. I do hope one day I open my wallet and receive like 1 btc.

Not just "why would we?" but also "How the fuck could we?". Even Gox wasn't around then so if you weren't mining them, it was damn near impossible to buy any, especially from within microscopic communities outside the US. Heck, back then you might have been the *only* person in your entire city to be interested in it, so even localbitcoins.com wouldn't have been practical.

I first saw BTC at ~5 cents (pre-Gox) and didn't seriously consider buying any. If I had found this forum back then things might be much different, but I somehow stumbled on a crude little site selling BTC for Paypal.
No regrets, the future starts now. 

It was worth like 2c. Very few people (myself included) had the foresight to buy at that price and why would we? There certainly wasn't the same hype around Bitcoin then (among the tiny community there was a little) and no one truly expected (some might claim it) that we would ever reach a valuation like this.

Anyway, you still technically one of the earlier adopters if the expectation that it will reach global acceptance is to be believed. Doesn't hurt to get in now for a bit and see where it goes.

Gotta love this quote (emphasis mine):


Sure puts everything into perspective doesn't it? I'd lick dog poop for 1 BTC. Heck, I'd probably suck a cock just for 1 BTC. Dammit those early adopters sure had it easy back then. Wish I had a time machine.

Sounds like you're using blockchain.info.

It's not a good idea to use wallet services that encourage bad privacy and security behavior.

Pretty good idea (without considering the ethicality) they actually got thousands of curious views for less than 0.01 BTC even excluding the empty wallets. Not a bad advertising idea.

Yeah, electrum does it

I've heard a lot about this strategy lately. It seems really cumbersome to me making a new address for every transaction. Is there some service that let's you so this but keep the same log in info? 

Won't any address used even once still be visible in the public blockchain and thus be a potential target for these spam transactions that never confirm?

I don't see how it is an issue.

I received one of those before, but only to an address that I reused numerous times. Since then I make an effort to create a fresh address for every transaction.

How is it a form of tagging when these transactions will never confirm thus will never be permanently recorded in the blockchain?

there is only around 200 000 actively used bitcoin addresses, sending 1 satoshi to each and everyone of them is not that hard or expensive

I believe the transactions will never be confirmed, however it can be considered a form of tagging, if you are a coinbase customer you probably have nothing to worry about. The transaction represents knowledge of your public key so no valid hack vector other than from a law enforcement agency, but it could be some research project tracking coins used or not used in illegal activities, and if "Green listing" is ever enacted, those coins may have a greater or lessor value.

Still consider educating your self on how to create and secure a private key and consider managing your own coins, and not leaving them in the control of a trusted 3rd party.

Offhand I'd say no, not a problem.  Ignore them and they'll eventually go away.

So is there a chance of having my coinbase account hacked after getting these?  I have 2 from today currently "pending" on my account

There is really no such thing as a 'real address'.  Any address which has funding has representation in the block chain (else, how did it get funded?), and thus the public address is available to anyone.  An address which has never been sent any bitcoin might be considered 'not real', but it's also fairly un-interesting.

In other words, there is no need to spam a wallet to find out if an address is 'real'.  The info can be obtained quickly, easily, and cheaply by just parsing the blockchain.

One method of tracking would be to send tiny transactions which are eventually confirmed then hope that when the user tries to make a spend, this dust is swept up and made part of the spend.  This is now expensive because it is not reliable unless the spammer includes a transaction fee (around 5000x the dust value currently) in order to ensure that the dust is confirmed and made permanent.

Client software may try to spend the unconfirmed transactions (like the ones we are talking about here) and it would more-or-less cause the entire wallet to become unusable until the dust transaction eventually fails to confirm.  This because a spend often spends all your money and returns the balance back to your wallet.  This issue of is being worked on.

If your local machine is running a 'full client' then it may be listening for unconfirmed transactions on the network and may pick up this spam.  Very recent developments involve changes to a local client which treats unconfirmed transactions differently in terms of computing balances, deciding how to construct 'spends', etc.  No matter what, software is being used to compute balances, this explains why you see the dust transaction in some places (like blockchain.info which is well connected) and not in others.

Again, these are my own understandings and I am not 100% sure of the exact details so if anyone wants to propose corrections, please do.