Why would anyone spend $65 in fees to send 500+ outputs for .001BTC to the same address?https://blockchain.info/tx/0270a4af1269b52bf242390076faa460cfcffe2db74bc748163d8de94e9ce875 then clicking through to the input address, it has some really bizarre transactions. Tons of transactions that have undecodeable outputs, and also, blockchain.info shows that only .003 btc was transacted for many of them, when clearly more was transacted. Indeed, clicking through to the transaction itself shows the correct amount. What is going on here?? https://blockchain.info/address/1F89hmmrtonJfAQNAqDmeDadcw7AsZcvXG
asked May 11, 2017 at 22:51
-
1The undecodable outputs appear to be OP_RETURN scripts whose purpose is to insert a short message or data snippet into the block chain. They are not so bizarre.– Nate EldredgeMay 11, 2017 at 23:11
-
The "amount transacted" is based on blockchain.info's guess that some of the outputs are "change" that's being paid back to the sender. So only the part that doesn't appear to be "change" is reported as "amount transacted". It's based on heuristics and can be mistaken or tricked.– Nate EldredgeMay 11, 2017 at 23:13
-
so what about the .001BTC? are all 500 of those to encode data? If so, where is this data? Is there a chance this is an attack to fill up the mempool?– hedgedandleveredMay 12, 2017 at 13:23
-
That I do not know.– Nate EldredgeMay 12, 2017 at 14:54
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
https://blockchain.info/address/1F89hmmrtonJfAQNAqDmeDadcw7AsZcvXG
The "Unable to decode output address" are as Nate commented OP_RETURN scripts whose purpose is to insert a short message or data snippet into the block chain. They are not so bizarre
Looking at some of the timestamps on the smaller transactions they are not all sent at the same time and fairly spaced out like someone might be manually making the transactions as opposed to a script running. Each transaction is approx 30 USD so maybe not so unusual?
