<p>This has two problems:</p>

<ol>
<li>The network still needs to remember those transactions, so this doesn't save storage space.</li>
<li>If someone does a double-spend attack, two nodes could believe two different things about the state of the network, depending on which transaction they heard about first. Over time, their views of the network would diverge more and more.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T08:21:48.313Z
I would not mind about conflicting states. This is only about information transport.
kermit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-14T19:19:24.440Z
2013-03-14T19:19:24.440Z
Nick ODell
<p>It is perfectly possible to create a transaction that is valid but not broadcast to the Bitcoin network.</p>

<p>However the usefulness is a doubtful because what such a transaction will tell is basically "the person that created this transaction had control over this amount of money at this point of time", it has no use to actually transmit value as the blockchain does not timestamp the transaction by including it in a block and no one will acknowledge that the money has changed hands.</p>

<p>If you want to detail your use case you may get a better answer.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-14T17:48:10.423Z
I meant it the other way round.
kermit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-14T17:03:27.953Z
2013-03-14T17:03:27.953Z
David
<p>Can I somehow create a transaction that is broadcasted over the bitcoin network but will not go into a block?</p>

<p>Might be handy for SatoshiDice like confirmations.</p>

<p>edit:
What I have in mind is transporting information over the bitcoin network without bloating the blockchain.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-14T19:01:33.070Z
There's no way to do that, the protocol isn't built to do such a thing.
o0'.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T03:45:01.410Z
You are asking is there a transaction type that will be relayed by nodes but not included in a block. Does this help: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/6035/153
Stephen Gornick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T08:22:14.757Z
Fork of this question here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8408/can-nlocktime-tx-be-used-to-flood-the-miners-mempools
kermit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T08:25:48.343Z
@Lohoris: Answer accepted - for now :)
kermit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-02T08:34:13.000Z
Actually it might be possible using nLocktime and sequence numbers... see fork link above. Might not be fully implemented as of now, though.
kermit
<transactions><spam>
Is it possible to transmit a tx over the network that does not go into the blockchain?
kermit
# Is it possible to transmit a tx over the network that does not go into the blockchain?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-03-14)

Can I somehow create a transaction that is broadcasted over the bitcoin network but will not go into a block?

Might be handy for SatoshiDice like confirmations.

edit:
What I have in mind is transporting information over the bitcoin network without bloating the blockchain.

**Tags:** transactions, spam

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There's no way to do that, the protocol isn't built to do such a thing.  
> **username_2**: You are asking is there a transaction type that will be relayed by nodes but not included in a block. Does this help: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/6035/153  
> **username_0**: Fork of this question here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8408/can-nlocktime-tx-be-used-to-flood-the-miners-mempools  
> **username_0**: @Lohoris: Answer accepted - for now :)  
> **username_0**: Actually it might be possible using nLocktime and sequence numbers... see fork link above. Might not be fully implemented as of now, though.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-03-14. Score: 2

This has two problems:

1. The network still needs to remember those transactions, so this doesn't save storage space.
2. If someone does a double-spend attack, two nodes could believe two different things about the state of the network, depending on which transaction they heard about first. Over time, their views of the network would diverge more and more.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I would not mind about conflicting states. This is only about information transport.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2013-03-14. Score: 0

It is perfectly possible to create a transaction that is valid but not broadcast to the Bitcoin network.

However the usefulness is a doubtful because what such a transaction will tell is basically "the person that created this transaction had control over this amount of money at this point of time", it has no use to actually transmit value as the blockchain does not timestamp the transaction by including it in a block and no one will acknowledge that the money has changed hands.

If you want to detail your use case you may get a better answer.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I meant it the other way round.  

---

