Quote from: David Rabahy on March 09, 2016, 08:28:30 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 09, 2016, 07:55:38 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 09, 2016, 07:52:41 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 09, 2016, 07:50:39 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 09, 2016, 07:38:06 PM

Luada, again we owe you a debt of gratitude. You do the work the rest of us are too lazy to do. Now I am beginning to understand why the verification process scales quadratic; not that me understanding matters per se but it is nice to know.

Example of such transaction a can be seen here (from last year).

Holy cow!

now does this constitute a legitimate TX?

can't we just ignore this type of TX?

Depends; sorry. In a sense it is absolutely legit; it follows all of the rules. But it easily could have been coded less abusively.

Let's first look at a much more classic transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/3a6a7d2456bfd6816ee1164e7c11307fa1c6855ee3116b6a1f8e6a14a98b04c4;

address (amount)
12kDK8snhBD6waJ2NaMB7QvSf4DzMcE9ad (0.21963496 BTC - Output) {call it what you want; this is an input}

1FmUPrnZTBymMT3ktgMx61hQ3JRyWD7NPY - (Unspent) 0.14193496 BTC
13dhrUuUe2MrZsufYGAZnwnyE7k97FRZ1v - (Unspent) 0.0776 BTC

Nice and easy; one input, two outputs; classic.

Now compare that to the big one;

19MxhZPumMt9ntfszzCTPmWNQeh6j6QqP2 (Brainwallet - dog) (0.00001 BTC - Output)
19MxhZPumMt9ntfszzCTPmWNQeh6j6QqP2 (Brainwallet - dog) (0.00001 BTC - Output)
...
19MxhZPumMt9ntfszzCTPmWNQeh6j6QqP2 (Brainwallet - dog) (0.00001 BTC - Output) {this is the 1598 occurrence}
...
{followed by zillions of more inputs}

This could have been codes as;

19MxhZPumMt9ntfszzCTPmWNQeh6j6QqP2 (Brainwallet - dog) (0.01598 BTC - Output)
...

and saved 1597 inputs on this batch of inputs alone. Ok, sure, we could ignore this one; um, need to figure out how to recognize such without rejecting non-abusive transactions.

that is the key

i say keep it simple stupid

if it has more than a zillion it's not getting included.