<p>I found an <strong><em>INCREDIBLY</em></strong> detailed spreadsheet documenting every single "<em>weird"</em> Tx up until March 2014. It's available at John Ratcliff's <a href="http://codesuppository.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Code Suppository</a> in his "<em>Transaction Input Signatures in the Bitcoin Blockchain over time</em>" <a href="http://codesuppository.blogspot.com/2014/03/transaction-input-signatures-in-bitcoin.html" rel="nofollow">blog post</a>, which in itself, is an incredibly comprehensive source of technically based Bitcoin information. </p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwdyTvSh6bUkeUM5QzRXRWkteWM/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">Spreadsheet documenting "weird Txns"</a> (March 4th, 2014 link)</li>
</ul>

<p>Similar in discussion and conclusions, <a href="http://www.righto.com/2014/02/bitcoin-transaction-malleability.html" rel="nofollow">Ken Shirriff assesses</a> <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/transaction-malleability">Txn Malleability</a> in his discussion, which is especially noteworthy since both these articles date from around the Mt. Gox implosion of Feb. 2014. </p>

<p>From John Ratcliff:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>On November 26, 2013 <a href="https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/7caed7650c392c24e44a093f30438fe6dc9ec1154b92bedc8a561130c9c50920" rel="nofollow">a whole bunch of input scripts show up</a> which
  <a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/7caed7650c392c24e44a093f30438fe6dc9ec1154b92bedc8a561130c9c50920" rel="nofollow">appear to all be considered valid by blockchain.info</a> but when I
  processed them I found that they still had extra data on the stack
  after the signature portion had been parsed.  This doesn't make them
  invalid, just unusual.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He continues:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>On seven occasions, instead of finding the expected SIGHASH_ALL byte
  of 0x01 a SIGHASH byte of 0 was found instead.  For those transactions
  blockchain.info appears to mark them as valid, though I'm not sure why
  it is.</p>
  
  <p>On 120 occasions, the SIGHASH_ALL value is found, however, it is
  preceded by a single zero byte.</p>
  
  <p>An additional 45 times prior to encountering SIGHASH_ALL multiple zero
  bytes are found.</p>
  
  <p>On one occasion in the blockchain, prior to finding the SIGHASH_ALL
  value there was a stream of 0x2A bytes.  Blockchain.info still flagged
  this as being a valid transaction, so I guess this is acceptable,
  though I'm not sure why.</p>
  
  <p>Eleven times I found a public key signature that was just hex 0x21
  bytes long instead of the standard 0x41 value we are used to seeing.</p>
  
  <p>Several thousand transactions use the PUSHDATA0 instruction in the
  front of the script, and then I couldn't fully parse all of the
  signature.  There is probably nothing wrong with this format, it's
  just not the most standard and I haven't taken it into account yet.</p>
  
  <p>SIGHASH_PAY_ANY and SIGHASH_PAY_SINGLE were used like a hundred times
  or so.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Examples provided include:</p>

<ul>
<li>the first transaction in the blockchain <a href="http://4f1433d6433d3ce8a877519ba9ddc310dbee96dba939aca0dbef0176a3563436/" rel="nofollow">which has an 'abnormal' signature</a> (block #157785, DEC 17, 2010)</li>
<li>On December 13, 2013, the blockchain got spammed with <a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/cc37f75889fb8610793872707235b6548eea75d26803245b36f88ca842e9bccd" rel="nofollow" title="TxID cc37f75889fb8610793872707235b6548eea75d26803245b36f88ca842e9bccd">a huge number of inputs which have invalid script signatures</a>.</li>
<li>The next abnormal input happens on January 7, 2013, with an <a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/91c8b08f305d895d6bc8f43bbdd36dcbc7f1d998e3df5e8f13dd9cdeebf15cb5" rel="nofollow">input script that just contains OP_1 (a true statement)</a>.  This <a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/5916bb41f8c05e6f60f41fb9dd9e871d5984b96b63964756854054e6dd0c6092" rel="nofollow">happens again on January 20, 2013.</a> </li>
<li>On July 21, 2013 someone left an amusing text message <a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/320a5c8eb5e8e0d4fc2ae48fc6f2d1c86ebe637193a61fcc9a13925d9cf96b1b" rel="nofollow">in their signed transaction</a>.  Blockchain.info identifies this signed transaction as being of 'Escrow' type.</li>
</ul>

<p>Some other amusing Txns to note:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/38df010716e13254fb5fc16065c1cf62ee2aeaed2fad79973f8a76ba91da36da" rel="nofollow">38df010716e13254fb5fc16065c1cf62ee2aeaed2fad79973f8a76ba91da36da</a>: <em>I should not run the washing machine while listening to WZBC. I managed to convince myself that the machine was slowly failing -- that a rythmic, squeaking noise it had been making had gotten a little worse. Ten minutes later, though, the machine had paused. But the noise was still there.</em></li>
<li><a href="https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/320a5c8eb5e8e0d4fc2ae48fc6f2d1c86ebe637193a61fcc9a13925d9cf96b1b" rel="nofollow">320a5c8eb5e8e0d4fc2ae48fc6f2d1c86ebe637193a61fcc9a13925d9cf96b1b</a>: <em>All your dummy values are belong to us.</em></li>
</ul>

<p>And....in this Tx's scriptSig, a meta-joke of sorts, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29" rel="nofollow">referencing Terminator's Skynet AI!</a>:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://blockchain.info/tx/61e26d407c17e8ee33a8b166c78f78c53cdcdc0078ae1f9405e6583cfb90eaf4?show_adv=true" rel="nofollow">61e26d407c17e8ee33a8b166c78f78c53cdcdc0078ae1f9405e6583cfb90eaf4</a>: </li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Skynet went online on August 4th 1997, and began to learn at a geometric rate. It became self-aware on August 29th 1997 2:14 am
  Eastern Time. On August 29th 1997 2:15 am it discovered nihilism, and
  either shut itself down due to despair, or because it was logical.
  We're not sure which.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>On August 4th, 1998, it failed to renew its domain name, which was promptly squatted on by a link farmer pitching X10 cameras and singing
  electric fish.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>March 2015 edit</strong>:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.quantabytes.com/articles/a-survey-of-bitcoin-transaction-types" rel="nofollow">A Survey of Bitcoin Transaction Types</a> from <a href="http://www.quantabytes.com/" rel="nofollow">QuantaBytes</a> provides another great source of various Tx and historical commentary (ie first instance of a <em>P2SH</em> Tx =  <a href="http://webbtc.com/tx/9c08a4d78931342b37fd5f72900fb9983087e6f46c4a097d8a1f52c74e28eaf6.json" rel="nofollow">9c08a4d78931342b37fd5f72900fb9983087e6f46c4a097d8a1f52c74e28eaf6</a>)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-13T13:50:03.313Z
2015-03-21T04:42:24.207Z
2015-03-21T04:42:24.207Z
Wizard Of Ozzie
<p>There has been discussion about this particular transaction before on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1k7ol2/an_interesting_transaction/" rel="nofollow">reddit</a>. This is clearly not a valid transaction and was probably used to store data on the blockchain before OP_RETURN.</p>

<p>Why was it relayed? It may not have been. There's a very easy way to get a transaction like this included and it's by submitting the transaction directly to a mining pool like <a href="http://eligius.st/~gateway/faq/transaction-processing" rel="nofollow">eligius</a>. As long as you add a high enough fee, they will process valid, but non-standard transactions.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-09T06:08:52.043Z
I've edited my original post to reframe the question's scope, namely, **what are some other *non-standard transactions* (i.e. not *76a914__88ac* or multisig related)** (fantastic answer btw)
Wizard Of Ozzie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-09T05:29:12.440Z
2015-02-09T05:29:12.440Z
Jimmy Song
<p>I've been writing Python code to fetch various transactions and came across this: <a href="https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69" rel="nofollow">77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69</a>. </p>

<p>The script field is as follows:</p>

<ul>
<li><code>scriptPubKey: "OP_IF OP_INVALIDOPCODE 4effffffff ........... OP_ENDIF"</code> (where ..... is the hex data, all ~2900 bytes worth)</li>
</ul>

<p>What is going on with..?:</p>

<ul>
<li><em>OP_IF</em> / <em>OP_ENDIF</em> codes (<a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script" rel="nofollow">wiki says</a> they correctly open and finish a script)</li>
<li><em>OP_INVALIDOPCODE</em> </li>
<li><em>0x4effffffff</em> </li>
<li><p>the HUGE data size of </p>

<pre><code>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 `
</code></pre></li>
</ul>

<p>Which decodes to:</p>

<pre><code>c ♣N    Mú♣From a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satoshi Nakamoto &lt;satoshin@gmx.com&gt;
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 &gt;= opcodes.OP_SINGLEBYTE_END and i &lt; len(bytes):
-            opcode &lt;&lt;= 8
-            opcode |= ord(bytes[i])
-            i += 1

         if opcode &lt;= opcodes.OP_PUSHDATA4:
             nSize = opcode
--
1.7.9.4

h
</code></pre>

<p><strong>Are there other non-standard transaction examples which are similarly noteworthy</strong>? To be clear, the hidden code is fun, but I'm looking for non-standard usage of <em>OP_CODE</em>s in Txns which have preferably been accepted as well formatted.</p>

<blockchain><protocol><script><raw-data><blockexplorer>
Non standard Tx with obscure OP codes: examples
Wizard Of Ozzie
# Non standard Tx with obscure OP codes: examples

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-02-09)

I've been writing Python code to fetch various transactions and came across this: [77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69](https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69).

The script field is as follows:

* `scriptPubKey: "OP_IF OP_INVALIDOPCODE 4effffffff ........... OP_ENDIF"` (where ..... is the hex data, all ~2900 bytes worth)

What is going on with..?:

* *OP\_IF* / *OP\_ENDIF* codes ([wiki says](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script) they correctly open and finish a script)
* *OP\_INVALIDOPCODE*
* *0x4effffffff*
* the HUGE data size of

  ```
  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 `

  ```

Which decodes to:

```
c ♣N    Mú♣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
--
1.7.9.4

h

```

**Are there other non-standard transaction examples which are similarly noteworthy**? To be clear, the hidden code is fun, but I'm looking for non-standard usage of *OP\_CODE*s in Txns which have preferably been accepted as well formatted.

**Tags:** blockchain, protocol, script, raw-data, blockexplorer


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-02-09. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

There has been discussion about this particular transaction before on [reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1k7ol2/an_interesting_transaction/). This is clearly not a valid transaction and was probably used to store data on the blockchain before OP\_RETURN.

Why was it relayed? It may not have been. There's a very easy way to get a transaction like this included and it's by submitting the transaction directly to a mining pool like [eligius](http://eligius.st/~gateway/faq/transaction-processing). As long as you add a high enough fee, they will process valid, but non-standard transactions.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I've edited my original post to reframe the question's scope, namely, **what are some other *non-standard transactions* (i.e. not *76a914__88ac* or multisig related)** (fantastic answer btw)  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2015-02-13. Score: 3

I found an ***INCREDIBLY*** detailed spreadsheet documenting every single "*weird"* Tx up until March 2014. It's available at John Ratcliff's [Code Suppository](http://codesuppository.blogspot.com) in his "*Transaction Input Signatures in the Bitcoin Blockchain over time*" [blog post](http://codesuppository.blogspot.com/2014/03/transaction-input-signatures-in-bitcoin.html), which in itself, is an incredibly comprehensive source of technically based Bitcoin information.

* [Spreadsheet documenting "weird Txns"](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwdyTvSh6bUkeUM5QzRXRWkteWM/edit?usp=sharing) (March 4th, 2014 link)

Similar in discussion and conclusions, [Ken Shirriff assesses](http://www.righto.com/2014/02/bitcoin-transaction-malleability.html) [Txn Malleability](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/transaction-malleability) in his discussion, which is especially noteworthy since both these articles date from around the Mt. Gox implosion of Feb. 2014.

From John Ratcliff:

> On November 26, 2013 [a whole bunch of input scripts show up](https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/7caed7650c392c24e44a093f30438fe6dc9ec1154b92bedc8a561130c9c50920) which
> [appear to all be considered valid by blockchain.info](https://blockchain.info/tx/7caed7650c392c24e44a093f30438fe6dc9ec1154b92bedc8a561130c9c50920) but when I
> processed them I found that they still had extra data on the stack
> after the signature portion had been parsed. This doesn't make them
> invalid, just unusual.

He continues:

> On seven occasions, instead of finding the expected SIGHASH\_ALL byte
> of 0x01 a SIGHASH byte of 0 was found instead. For those transactions
> blockchain.info appears to mark them as valid, though I'm not sure why
> it is.
>
> On 120 occasions, the SIGHASH\_ALL value is found, however, it is
> preceded by a single zero byte.
>
> An additional 45 times prior to encountering SIGHASH\_ALL multiple zero
> bytes are found.
>
> On one occasion in the blockchain, prior to finding the SIGHASH\_ALL
> value there was a stream of 0x2A bytes. Blockchain.info still flagged
> this as being a valid transaction, so I guess this is acceptable,
> though I'm not sure why.
>
> Eleven times I found a public key signature that was just hex 0x21
> bytes long instead of the standard 0x41 value we are used to seeing.
>
> Several thousand transactions use the PUSHDATA0 instruction in the
> front of the script, and then I couldn't fully parse all of the
> signature. There is probably nothing wrong with this format, it's
> just not the most standard and I haven't taken it into account yet.
>
> SIGHASH\_PAY\_ANY and SIGHASH\_PAY\_SINGLE were used like a hundred times
> or so.

Examples provided include:

* the first transaction in the blockchain [which has an 'abnormal' signature](http://4f1433d6433d3ce8a877519ba9ddc310dbee96dba939aca0dbef0176a3563436/) (block #157785, DEC 17, 2010)
* On December 13, 2013, the blockchain got spammed with [a huge number of inputs which have invalid script signatures](https://blockchain.info/tx/cc37f75889fb8610793872707235b6548eea75d26803245b36f88ca842e9bccd "TxID cc37f75889fb8610793872707235b6548eea75d26803245b36f88ca842e9bccd").
* The next abnormal input happens on January 7, 2013, with an [input script that just contains OP\_1 (a true statement)](https://blockchain.info/tx/91c8b08f305d895d6bc8f43bbdd36dcbc7f1d998e3df5e8f13dd9cdeebf15cb5). This [happens again on January 20, 2013.](https://blockchain.info/tx/5916bb41f8c05e6f60f41fb9dd9e871d5984b96b63964756854054e6dd0c6092)
* On July 21, 2013 someone left an amusing text message [in their signed transaction](https://blockchain.info/tx/320a5c8eb5e8e0d4fc2ae48fc6f2d1c86ebe637193a61fcc9a13925d9cf96b1b). Blockchain.info identifies this signed transaction as being of 'Escrow' type.

Some other amusing Txns to note:

* [38df010716e13254fb5fc16065c1cf62ee2aeaed2fad79973f8a76ba91da36da](https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/38df010716e13254fb5fc16065c1cf62ee2aeaed2fad79973f8a76ba91da36da): *I should not run the washing machine while listening to WZBC. I managed to convince myself that the machine was slowly failing -- that a rythmic, squeaking noise it had been making had gotten a little worse. Ten minutes later, though, the machine had paused. But the noise was still there.*
* [320a5c8eb5e8e0d4fc2ae48fc6f2d1c86ebe637193a61fcc9a13925d9cf96b1b](https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/320a5c8eb5e8e0d4fc2ae48fc6f2d1c86ebe637193a61fcc9a13925d9cf96b1b): *All your dummy values are belong to us.*

And....in this Tx's scriptSig, a meta-joke of sorts, [referencing Terminator's Skynet AI!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29):

* [61e26d407c17e8ee33a8b166c78f78c53cdcdc0078ae1f9405e6583cfb90eaf4](https://blockchain.info/tx/61e26d407c17e8ee33a8b166c78f78c53cdcdc0078ae1f9405e6583cfb90eaf4?show_adv=true):

> *Skynet went online on August 4th 1997, and began to learn at a geometric rate. It became self-aware on August 29th 1997 2:14 am
> Eastern Time. On August 29th 1997 2:15 am it discovered nihilism, and
> either shut itself down due to despair, or because it was logical.
> We're not sure which.*
>
> *On August 4th, 1998, it failed to renew its domain name, which was promptly squatted on by a link farmer pitching X10 cameras and singing
> electric fish.*

**March 2015 edit**:

[A Survey of Bitcoin Transaction Types](http://www.quantabytes.com/articles/a-survey-of-bitcoin-transaction-types) from [QuantaBytes](http://www.quantabytes.com/) provides another great source of various Tx and historical commentary (ie first instance of a *P2SH* Tx = [9c08a4d78931342b37fd5f72900fb9983087e6f46c4a097d8a1f52c74e28eaf6](http://webbtc.com/tx/9c08a4d78931342b37fd5f72900fb9983087e6f46c4a097d8a1f52c74e28eaf6.json))


---

