1
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.
2
This has two problems:
I would not mind about conflicting states. This is only about information transport. – kermit – 2013-03-15T08:21:48.313
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.
I meant it the other way round. – kermit – 2013-03-14T17:48:10.423
There's no way to do that, the protocol isn't built to do such a thing. – o0'. – 2013-03-14T19:01:33.070
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
– Stephen Gornick – 2013-03-15T03:45:01.410Fork of this question here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8408/can-nlocktime-tx-be-used-to-flood-the-miners-mempools
– kermit – 2013-03-15T08:22:14.7571@Lohoris: Answer accepted - for now :) – kermit – 2013-03-15T08:25:48.343
Actually it might be possible using nLocktime and sequence numbers... see fork link above. Might not be fully implemented as of now, though. – kermit – 2013-04-02T08:34:13.000