So in summary (perhaps) if you have 300 BTC you can "spam the blockchain" with such small tx's no worries.
I guess that as not so many people have 300 BTC to do so (or to risk on a bot that may malfunction) then this is not really a pressing issue (just an interesting observation thanks to the OP having noticed it).
Topic: Someone is spamming the blockchain - page 3. (Read 7813 times)
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days.Ah that makes sense as to why 300 BTC then - nicely pointed out
[EDIT] but yeah - why not 50 then?
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days.Ah that makes sense as to why 300 BTC then - nicely pointed out
[EDIT] but yeah - why not 50 then?
Please tell me you are trolling 
I am guessing so (shouldn't have bothered replying should I).
ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.
Please tell me you are trolling
ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.
If everyone did this then the blockchain would end up 1000s of times bigger than it is - and how is it totally normal to send your BTC to one address and back to the original address every single block?
ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days.
So would 50 BTC be able to be used to do the same thing then?
Its not spamming if they are paying fees 
No fees are being paid (check the links to blockchain,info).
Its not spamming if they are paying fees
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days. EC math is magic.
You don't really embed the secret number, you provide the product of the random number * G. You may recognize that as the same operation that produces your public keys from your private keys.
You don't really embed the secret number, you provide the product of the random number * G. You may recognize that as the same operation that produces your public keys from your private keys.
Oh - well I must admit that to me it is a bit magic - but from what you're saying then the random number being not actually embedded at all would make it pretty useless for storing information then.
In that case we can rule out the "storing information" hypothesis - any other ideas why this spamming is being done (to prove some point perhaps)?
No, the random number is a secret. You can't use it to store information. Revealing the random number will also reveal the private key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_DSA#Signature_generation_algorithm
Huh - exactly how do you embed a "secret" number when ECDSA just does signing (it does not do encryption)?
EC math is magic.
You don't really embed the secret number, you provide the product of the random number * G. You may recognize that as the same operation that produces your public keys from your private keys.
The free TX policy has a coin days destroyed. For example, sending 100 BTC around would allow you to get free TX 100x faster than sending 1 BTC around.
Aha - I thought something like that might be the reason - so does the figure of 300 BTC have any "magical property" in regards that it seemingly can get into every new block (despite the UTXO being no older than the last block)?
If they used 100 BTC instead would that not work just as well?
Perhaps someone plans to offer a BTC investment vehicle to potential non-technical investors and wants to provide them other "good data" beyond just exchange pricing. That entity could simply point to the sheer number of bitcoins transferred through the network as an "indicator" of its increased usage, knowing the average person wouldn't investigate the blockchain itself for something like this.
Why are they using a large amount of coins for this purpose? Couldn't they just transfer 1 coin back and forth and acheive the same result?
A good question - does it have something to do with the minimum tx fee algo or maybe the spammer is just "showing off" how much BTC they have?
Why are they using a large amount of coins for this purpose? Couldn't they just transfer 1 coin back and forth and acheive the same result?
A good question - does it have something to do with the minimum tx fee algo or maybe the spammer is just "showing off" how much BTC they have?
Why are they using a large amount of coins for this purpose? Couldn't they just transfer 1 coin back and forth and acheive the same result?
When signing with ECDSA you need to include a random number, which makes the signature different.
Okay - so random number rather than timestamp - the point is you *can* embed information then (and if random number then easier probably as perhaps if it was a timestamp it might be checked for range).
Of course I assume it is not that big so not much information can be sent with such an approach (yes - too lazy to check the exact details as I don't think it matters very much - if the wish is to send messages then Bitmessage would be a much better option).
No, the random number is a secret. You can't use it to store information. Revealing the random number will also reveal the private key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_DSA#Signature_generation_algorithm
Huh - exactly how do you embed a "secret" number when ECDSA just does signing (it does not do encryption)?
When signing with ECDSA you need to include a random number, which makes the signature different.
Okay - so random number rather than timestamp - the point is you *can* embed information then (and if random number then easier probably as perhaps if it was a timestamp it might be checked for range).
Of course I assume it is not that big so not much information can be sent with such an approach (yes - too lazy to check the exact details as I don't think it matters very much - if the wish is to send messages then Bitmessage would be a much better option).
No, the random number is a secret. You can't use it to store information. Revealing the random number will also reveal the private key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_DSA#Signature_generation_algorithm
Jump to: