Someone is spamming the blockchain

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

we were going to run into this problem sooner or later, script allows for data to be stored in the blockchain, however since there is currently no incentive to hold the blockchain (fees being paid to hold it), eventually we'll run into serious storage problems enhanced by using the blockchain for storage, my companies design is looking at that seriously and we're currently trying to figure out a method that will keep bloat down to a minimum while maintaining a DDOS proof account ledger.

[1715276618]

1715276618

[1715276618]

1715276618

[1715276618]

1715276618

[jl2012]

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

[CIYAM]

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)?

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

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).

the size allotted to script section in bytes has a maximum of 10kb (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script, scroll down to messages), so in theory you can store a significant amount of text per transaction, that's one thing that satoshi didn't envision and could cause problems if everyone starts using script to store database info, the blockchain bloat will increase in pace.

[bozak]

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?

[CIYAM]

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?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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?

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.

[KeyserSoze]

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.

[CIYAM]

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?

[kjj]

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.

[CIYAM]

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.

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)?

[SgtSpike]

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.

[dirtscience]

https://blockchain.info/address/15Z4XmorKSN51ndyPrZ2EtL7Nnksb88888

300BTC sending back and forth...  

Its not spamming if they are paying fees

[CIYAM]

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).

[dirtscience]

ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.

[CIYAM]

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?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

ITS NOT SPAMMING, totally a normal thing to do.

Please tell me you are trolling

[CIYAM]

Please tell me you are trolling

I am guessing so (shouldn't have bothered replying should I).

[nottm28]

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?

[SgtSpike]

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?

If they want to do it every 3 blocks, they might want to make sure the transactions won't have trouble getting through in case 3 blocks are mined rather quickly after each other.  Or, they just had 300 BTC handy that they didn't want to split up.  Or.... ??