Bitcoin Forum

Some one just sent 1300 bitcoins to address1 -> 0.003 fee & 0.xx -> address2 -> 0.003 fee & 0.xx -> address3 -> .. -> address1000 -> ...

By paying 0.003 each time to make block 393652,393699,393727 and few other blocks very big.. It's all about moving the same hundreds of bitcoin 1k+ times.

Mine pool / 3M ponzi sending out bitcoins to 1k+ users? quite expensive spams, no?

in one transaction, 0.0776 BTC was sent to 1NrbW4V68a2JvTnn3HgCD4wobUxUaNgrBy which belongs to an Hong Kong exchanger anxpro.com .
Some also go to an TaiWan exchanger https://www.maicoin.com


Example:
The very beginning:
https://blockchain.info/address/1FP9d18dXFGuGVMsaUrFky1msEpQcUCwDZ

loops begin at 17/01/2016:
https://blockchain.info/tx/0e45df9fcf6fd4a9ab56ef19a166e1ca79168cd794f95f96d4872ffb27522e70
https://www.blockseer.com/transactions/04501ef62032fa60b96fdcab13fdd62e9cbb427826c63f1f46301c6663993f62/graph
https://www.blockseer.com/transactions/6274f94b786303249335a752d49eaddbcede5229cd01ee601d78154b26a7ca97/graph

Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough

If they are going to pay for spamming the network that's okay, larger block adjustments are on the way

My transactions are confirming just fine as it is... ;)

No it's not. We've been hearing that for years now. Bitcoin development is dead.
The only real action taken was Bitcoin XT, it was a chance to solve the scaling issue but it got rejected and censored by the community.

The developers of bitcoin are making life very tough. That's why we'll be forking to Bitcoin Classic.

Probably just some really rich guy that wants to transfer a lot of his Bitcoin into other addresses so it is safer. Or maybe an exchange.

I wish they would do something more radical.. 2MB is not like solving all current and future problems.

Atleast the spammers are now paying for their attack, unlike the last attack where thousands of people were trying to multi spend at the same time.

mine too, and anyway the proposal are coming, around april, one of the way to have 2mb will be settled


read the roadmap, you need to wait a bit, more they pushed it to 2016, beause there is the halving and probably a major increase in the user base, because of a major increase in the value, which already occured btw...

This. Bitcoin Classic seems to be the way to go for now. Hopefully they will release working client soon.

I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size!
Or, they might be just another coin doubler ponzi trying to popularize their scheme via Blockchain.

I will try to find a connection between the transactions through Wallet Explorer and will report the results soon.

The current problem with block size is about bytes and spamming is about generating lots of transactions or transactions with very big reprsentation (in bytes). This title refers to blocksize in bitcoins sent.

It's probably Mike Hearn trying to prove his point about larger block sizes ^^;

Do you understand that Mike Hearn talked about block size in bytes - and this is about block size in BTC (sent)?

The title yes, but OP also inferred these same coins were being sent over & over which would also (admittedly by just a small amount) increase block size. How many times they were actually flushed I did not actually check. But I was hardly serious...

I think, sending large number of bitcoins in a transaction and sending several minute amounts of transaction is same is the final block size exceeds the appreciable limit.

Moreover he was constantly trying to limit the confirmation speed by sending in his own addresses many times.
This may also decrease the value of Bitcoin Days Destroyed!