4 ms·

Interesting. I have been "receiving" .00001 BTC from an address beginning with 1Enjoy (1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z). This has been ongoing since Feb 10.

Interesting. I have been "receiving" .00001 BTC from an address beginning with 1Enjoy (1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z). This has been ongoing since Feb 10. Another .00001 BTC unconfirmed showed up from another address starting with 1Sochi...

scottcanoni 13y ago
Are you saying that these are the modified transaction IDs?
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  These are Bitcoin addresses. The hash for the first is 197c054e032f9b6b406625b49fcb2c429c0825633143d082bbbdbcd5fa368bd4 I do not know if it is modified. Neither of them are confirmed. (I converted my Starbucks card balance to a meager fraction of a Bitcoin. Since then my $7.21 has plummeted to $5.69.)
melarina 13y ago
Yep, a lot of us have gotten those. There is also another one that starts "1Sochi..."
wmf 13y ago
I got those as well. This appears to be completely unrelated to malleability.
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  OK. The article mentions an unconfirmed transaction starting with 1Enjoy1...
- oscilloscope 13y ago
  Have any of these been confirmed? It could be related to malleability if these are test transactions that were invalidated by mutated txids.
Zidewinder 13y ago
People have speculated that this is an attempt by some attacker to correlate ownership of older and newer addresses en masse. Some wallets give the user no control over which address(es) are used as the source for any given payment. When a tiny sum shows up in some old empty address still being tracked by the wallet, those coins will eventually be sent on automatically as part of a larger payment, alongside coins from one of the user's currently active addresses, and suddenly the common ownership of those two addresses becomes public record.
- oscilloscope 13y ago
  Most wallets only have the crudest tools to prevent identity attacks like this, such as setting a preferred address for the next payment. Frequently, you won't even see what the inputs and outputs of a transaction will be before it's broadcast to the network.
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  In that case, maybe publishing the addresses wasn't the most discreet thing imaginable. Still my "holdings" amount to a Starbucks card converted to BTC through an online service mentioned on HN. I wanted to motivate myself to become interested in Bitcoins, and thought that watching a miniscule amount might help, but the mischief around cryptocurrencies is demotivating. Cryptocurrencies should be regulated. Perhaps the Bitcoin will serve in the long run to address some rent-seeking behavior in the banking system. For now it's the Wild West.

scottcanoni 13y ago

Are you saying that these are the modified transaction IDs?

ChristianMarks 13y ago
These are Bitcoin addresses. The hash for the first is 197c054e032f9b6b406625b49fcb2c429c0825633143d082bbbdbcd5fa368bd4 I do not know if it is modified. Neither of them are confirmed. (I converted my Starbucks card balance to a meager fraction of a Bitcoin. Since then my $7.21 has plummeted to $5.69.)

melarina 13y ago

Yep, a lot of us have gotten those. There is also another one that starts "1Sochi..."

wmf 13y ago

I got those as well. This appears to be completely unrelated to malleability.

ChristianMarks 13y ago
OK. The article mentions an unconfirmed transaction starting with 1Enjoy1...
oscilloscope 13y ago
Have any of these been confirmed? It could be related to malleability if these are test transactions that were invalidated by mutated txids.

Zidewinder 13y ago

People have speculated that this is an attempt by some attacker to correlate ownership of older and newer addresses en masse. Some wallets give the user no control over which address(es) are used as the source for any given payment. When a tiny sum shows up in some old empty address still being tracked by the wallet, those coins will eventually be sent on automatically as part of a larger payment, alongside coins from one of the user's currently active addresses, and suddenly the common ownership of those two addresses becomes public record.

oscilloscope 13y ago
Most wallets only have the crudest tools to prevent identity attacks like this, such as setting a preferred address for the next payment. Frequently, you won't even see what the inputs and outputs of a transaction will be before it's broadcast to the network.
ChristianMarks 13y ago
In that case, maybe publishing the addresses wasn't the most discreet thing imaginable. Still my "holdings" amount to a Starbucks card converted to BTC through an online service mentioned on HN. I wanted to motivate myself to become interested in Bitcoins, and thought that watching a miniscule amount might help, but the mischief around cryptocurrencies is demotivating. Cryptocurrencies should be regulated. Perhaps the Bitcoin will serve in the long run to address some rent-seeking behavior in the banking system. For now it's the Wild West.