bitwars.org spamming the blockchain network with 0.00000001 transactions

[Duetschpire]

Here's the reddit post

Today I sent myself some Bitcoins to btc-e and then got a notification from my blockchain app that I received 0.00000001 BTC.

I looked up the transaction and address and found that it's publicly labeled "Play and Win BTC" which redirects to bitwars.org. Checked their address and they've been sending 100's if not 1,000's of minor transactions to Bitcoin addresses which send or receive payment by what looks like a blockchain transactions scan. Transaction Examples

Got home tonight and was going through the routine check on my site (cryptothrift.com) when I saw the same amounts sent to disposable addresses used for people to deposit funds:

• receive 1.0E-8 BTC 0 1EqzzdcMi25HjhLdZUMZh2ER9TQs7ZJrYq
• receive 1.0E-8 BTC 0 1DuYqSNL3c7mwQNoDGHL2heFvK1Qh4R4jG
• receive 1.0E-8 BTC 0 1DuYqSNL3c7mwQNoDGHL2heFvK1Qh4R4jG
• receive 1.0E-8 BTC 0 1fxApMamCQFqEZ5as2CF2GQY5bft7GHiM

That's when I clicked to what they're attempting to do, spam the network with minor fee-less transactions to advertise their service. Which reminded me to what I read (but not confirmed) about a similar game played by bitcoin.tm on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297110.0

Is this normal? Have services and sites been doing this much lately? Does raise eye brows or am I just too cautious?

Update: When I sent the coins to my btc-e account, I noticed that I got the same amount transacted twice. First one confirmed nicely, the 2nd is still sitting with 0 confirmations (a typical double spend attempt) and the TX ID is invalid



2f4044aa4491be921b084f56790089e4a37525ff475ffbe036e5105a0903955e. I didn't think twice of that either... But I just noticed the same thing happened on my site with one of those addresses which have received the 0.00000001 BTC



... again, the transaction ID c6977180762c6c55d836a9e3018b4d05f4f5d67957c5e74f11316954da3c7643 shows as invalid with 0 confirmations showing on my side.

[Rannasha]

Regarding the second issue, the double transactions, this is probably related to the transaction malleability attack that has plagued MtGox (but doesn't affect properly configured systems). People may be picking up transactions and rebroadcasting them with a different tx-id, for fun or to run some exploit, who knows?

[hilariousandco]

It's just a new way of spamming/advertising.

Similar thing here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=459845.0

[Duetschpire]

Regarding the second issue, the double transactions, this is probably related to the transaction malleability attack that has plagued MtGox (but doesn't affect properly configured systems). People may be picking up transactions and rebroadcasting them with a different tx-id, for fun or to run some exploit, who knows?

We figured that this is the issue, and for those two transactions to have the same weird 1 Satoshi in them might be all circumstantial and there could be nothing more into it. We hope at least... Our system has been ignoring those transaction with invalid hashes and processing the valid ones accordingly.

[freebitcoinwin]

Good way to get free traffic

[hostmaster]

It's just a new way of spamming/advertising.

Similar thing here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=459845.0

Interesting way of spamming.

[thecoinjournal]

 I got 0.00000001BTC from this address: https://blockchain.info/address/1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z

[El Dude]

Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?

[hilariousandco]

Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?

I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?

[whtchocla7e]

Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?

I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?

Doesn't matter, they still burden the network.

[Lauda]

Doesn't matter, they still burden the network.

No they don't burden the network. You can send 1M of these transactions and nobody would feel a thing.

[Duetschpire]

Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?

I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?

Doesn't matter, they still burden the network.

I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?

Smart, but not ethical.

[hilariousandco]

Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?

I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?

Doesn't matter, they still burden the network.

I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?

Smart, but not ethical.

Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?

[Duetschpire]

Doesn't bitcoin have spam dust fee like litecoin to prevent this type of spam on the network?

I don't think the transactions will ever get confirmed will they?

Transaction without fees do end up confirming... eventually; if no double spending was detected.

Perfect Example!

Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which may be double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to or from this address.

Blockchain Link

[Duetschpire]

I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?

Smart, but not ethical.

Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?

Not that I know off, but I could be wrong. I know some addresses and associated addresses can be flagged in case of double spending, but I'm not entirely sure how/if they can be blocked from sending/receiving. If they can, the devs would have probably thought about blocking the SR seized coins with the FBI to prevent a mass sell off

[hurricandave]

Couldn't this also be a way of confirming addresses that are currently active by tracking the time sent till inquiry? possibly capturing IP of linked inquiries to an address used exclusively to this campaign.

[hilariousandco]

I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?

Smart, but not ethical.

Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?

Not that I know off, but I could be wrong. I know some addresses and associated addresses can be flagged in case of double spending, but I'm not entirely sure how/if they can be blocked from sending/receiving. If they can, the devs would have probably thought about blocking the SR seized coins with the FBI to prevent a mass sell off

Why would they do that? That's just asking for trouble. What I was thinking was more along the lines of being able to set your wallet to not receive dust etc.

[hurricandave]

Why would they do that? That's just asking for trouble. What I was thinking was more along the lines of being able to set your wallet to not receive dust etc.

    It would certainly need to be a receiver option because e-book authors and some other press outlets make micro transactions for materials viewed and/or downloaded with the thought that the content creator would accumulate a useable sum.

[Duetschpire]

I agree, it's not a matter of burdening the network. It's a pure spammy advertising which they're sending no transaction fee with. So technically, 1 BTC can send 100,000,000 transactions to different addresses. Let 1% of these check the link, you've got 1,000,000 visitors. Which $700 ad campaign can generate such traffic?

Smart, but not ethical.

Is there a way to stop this, or are the devs working on something?

Not that I know off, but I could be wrong. I know some addresses and associated addresses can be flagged in case of double spending, but I'm not entirely sure how/if they can be blocked from sending/receiving. If they can, the devs would have probably thought about blocking the SR seized coins with the FBI to prevent a mass sell off

Why would they do that? That's just asking for trouble. What I was thinking was more along the lines of being able to set your wallet to not receive dust etc.

That was a joke ^^

ummm, not really, it's like asking your bank to accept anything above $5 to your account... I think money is money.

But imagine somebody throwing $0.05 under your front door so you open to find a salesman trying to sell you a Schticky?

[hilariousandco]

It would certainly need to be a receiver option because e-book authors and some other press outlets make micro transactions for materials viewed and/or downloaded with the thought that the content creator would accumulate a useable sum.

Yeah, it wouldn't be a good idea restricting it altogether, but an option to block certain amounts or addresses could be useful.