Bitcoin Forum

People can associate a 'message' with a bitcoin address.  When that address is displayed on Blockchain.info - everyone sees the message.  Blockchain.info can easily make and maintain a 'spam' list for abusers.  Once an address is caught spamming, they can be listed and a module can prevent their spam from being further displayed.  

Without this feature, more will continue to shove microtransactions onto popular address so everyone can see their stupid message.  For example, look at this piece of garbage: http://blockchain.info/tx/a166207c072c2d4b257e9f5c33da3e61e06cd0a6091b6a2955a0ebadd2ed0c9e (http://blockchain.info/tx/a166207c072c2d4b257e9f5c33da3e61e06cd0a6091b6a2955a0ebadd2ed0c9e)

Blockchain.info should help stop this kind of bullshit right now.  Agree or Disagree?


This amounts to some serious blockchain abuse and these assholes behind it should be stopped. http://blockchain.info/address/1BSmartoUnHz32AAdPKcc7cGGC3DiA4RSh  (http://blockchain.info/address/1BSmartoUnHz32AAdPKcc7cGGC3DiA4RSh)  The bad behavior is enabled by blockchain.info

I totally agree. Dust spamming is bad enough, but when you can add messages with no restriction to this dust. It is unattractive.

Unless you have an ocd syndrom i don't see the problem with that dust spam. And who cares about those messages anyway...

I strongly disagree. If they were to do this they would essentially be regulating freedom of speech, which is an indirect goal that bitcoin helps achieve. If they were to disable the feature then people would have one less reason to use their block explorer so doing so would be a bad business decision.

If you receive any of this spam then you can simply donate it to the miners

some one keeps on sending me 0.00000001 BTC to my wallet is this the same people trying to spam the network?

all i can see is this code with coinbase
f6ecc14f330a35b617e844a376b046487987004baa1b6bf7251fbf238643aa19

it looks like this address
1BSmartoUnHz32AAdPKcc7cGGC3DiA4RSh

it is ever 5 min they are doing this it is getting annoying because they never post. it says hash f6ecc14f330a35b617e844a376b046487987004baa1b6bf7251fbf238643aa19

block size 2.51 KB pool tx pool. fee 0.0003. i dont know if any body can pull that up or not. i dont understand half of this but it keeps on happening. This is my coinbase wallet.  some body has found. 

I dont really care. Its a new age of advertising, imagine receiving random payments in your paypal account saying btcsmart.net or something.

and 0.00000001BTC for free, so whats the problem :P  ( just joking guys.. )

It fucks up the blockchain with unpaid pollution. 

Every time you use bitcoin for the rest of your life, your computer going to have to parse that big piece of shit transaction which was dumped there by a scam company who thinks you want to 'double your balance'. 

If blockchain.info stops providing them a forum, they won't dump that garbage into the blockchain and we won't have to consume more resources messing with it. 

Paid ads are different.  Everything has a price. 

Even if blockchain.info didn't provide this service, this kind of spam would likely continue. Instead of tagging their website they would simply use SEO (it would not require much) to make it so whenever someone would run a google search on their BTC address, their website would pop up.

To get around the issue with your computer having to parse through the TX, the solution would be to send all the BTC you have at an address that received the spam transaction (except for the input of the spam) to a new BTC address, and disregard the old address.  - Problem solved - stop complaining

I don't mind at least I get free bitcoin. If I don't like the spam, I could easily ignore it. Some people can get pissed by this message, blockchain could offer such option to filter spam for them.

bc.info removed the spammer's message (and probably blacklisted them).

If Eligius blacklists them too, this spammer's business may fail.
(These 1 satoshi transactions are non-standard and the spammer has to submit
them directly  to a pool that accepts them, which is only Eligius.)

This guy is sending lots of 1 satoshi transactions... And not paying the full miner's fee?

Was that why almost none of the spam transactions were actually confirmed?

Why spam ?
It's decided by miners to deal with Micro tx , not blockchain info.

Also beware of blockchain.info phishing attempts, along with coinbase ones. If you see a random email from blockchain.info be vary wary as the phishing attempt is quite sophisticated.

No. It's like a history.  Think of people reading this messages 25 years in the future.  8)

Maybe we should all send messages to our future selves.

Perhaps Blockchain.info could only display messages associated with transactions where the value is over a certain amount, perhaps 0.001 BTC?

But I guess this would not stop spammers/advertisers who grouped transactions to pass this limit...

To further this, blockchain.info could modify their filter to not display messages where the average amount per output was above a certain threshold, but of course the advertisers/spammers would then just use a large output paid to an address they control to boost the average above the required value... Even using a median value to create the threshold could be relatively easily circumvented...

So I guess blockchain.info could try to implement some sort of filter for spam transactions, but I would guess it would be easily circumvented by the advertisers/spammers in no time... How for example should Blockchain.info differentiate between a faucet paying a large number of addresses in a "legitimate" transaction accompanied by a blockchain.info message, from an advert(/spam)?

Unfortunately I do not think that it is in Blockchain.info's interest and indeed within their capability to censor spam/adverts, and this kind of behaviour does not really follow with the ethics of the bitcoin movement anyway; if the action does not impede people's right to privacy, free space, right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of thought etc, then why should Blockchain.info be tasked with blocking or censoring such actions?

If you do not agree with their decision to allow 'mesasges' to be attached to transactions then you are free to use alternative blockchain explorer sites, for example:

blockr.io (http://btc.blockr.io/)
biteasy (https://www.biteasy.com/) or of course
block explorer (https://blockexplorer.com/)

If you do not agree to store the (large?) blockchain on your computer, then use an SPV wallet, this is your prerogative.

They should set mininum send (0.00001 BTC)
Because i don't mind spammer send at least 1000 satoshi.

But the main problem is Miner/Pool
They shouldn't process spam tx

Can't miners already choose which transactions they complete? I think for the user it would be beneficial if they could set a minimum amount of coins they can recieve to stop this sort of stuff.

I don't see why its a problem. I like the free money, if bitcoin hits a million a satoshi will be worth a cent, and you will be one cent richer because some spammers sent you some money. Its a win win situation.

The problem is this dust wont just be free money because it will cost you when you have to send a very large fee just to cover the transaction. Suddenly those free satoshis don't look so appealing.

He pays for the tx fee, I don't. When you have over 100$ in btc tx fees don't really matter to me.

does this in anyway damage the network?

Not really damage per se, but it can cause bloat and it is unnecessary. It'll also make recipients have to pay more as transaction fees, so it is an annoyance and 'damaging' in that way.

Recipients do not have to pay higher TX fees if they receive this dust spam as they can simply ignore these inputs and choose not to spend them.

I do agree that it does bloat up the blockchain and adds additional data that the nodes need to store, however this spam does provide valid and needed income to the miners

AGREE~~ ;D
I will feel happy if I receive 0.00000001 BTC (everyday)  ;D
Bitcoin address:1MFFpVnY7PYiVzggHNGgW84h88fQ5rrkxn
Welcome to send 0.00000001 BTC  :P

The cost (TX fee) to spend an input this small would be greater then the input therefor you would essentially not be able to ever spend such an input (unless the price of bitcoin rises substantially and average transactions sizes decrease substantially)

Faucets might want to group smaller amounts into a single transaction though.