Does a PUBLIC Bitcoin Burn address really exist?

[Bitcoin-Eco]

Out of all of Bitcoin history has one address been rendered a certifiable "Bitcoin Burn Address". An address the Bitcoin community can trust 100% that the Bitcoin sent to this address CANNOT ever be recovered . A Bitcoin address so completely unrecoverable the Bitcoin sent to this address could be considered "removed from total supply"

[1714173344]

1714173344

[Lucius]

Here are two examples that are 100% burn addresses :

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114olvt2

See here for further explanation.

[Bitcoin-Eco]

Here are two examples that are 100% burn addresses :

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114olvt2

See here for further explanation.

Thank you very much. And people would trust these addresses 100%? The bitcoins sent to this address can be considered out of circulation or removed from total supply?

[hosseinimr93]

Thank you very much. And people would trust these addresses 100%? The bitcoins sent to this address can be considered out of circulation or removed from total supply?

Yes, no one has access to private key of these addresses.

Note that any private key can generate a bitcoin address. But you can't generate the private key from a bitcoin address.
Since these addresses have been generated without a private key, there is no way to derive their private key.

[ziennakarishma21]

This is a knowledge not many people can know. This is like a Bitcoin burning address, no one can own or use it right?

[joniboini]

This is a knowledge not many people can know. This is like a Bitcoin burning address, no one can own or use it right?

It's not really a secret though, and yeah as explained above no one has the key to control them. Check the explanation for further details. A few minutes of reading and you'll understand it.

[worle1bm]

Yes, no one has access to private key of these addresses.

Note that any private key can generate a bitcoin address. But you can't generate the private key from a bitcoin address.
Since these addresses have been generated without a private key, there is no way to derive their private key.

Yes because Bitcoin addresses are generated from private keys and public keys through one way elliptic curve multiplication or one way hash function using SHA-256 algorithm which cannot be reversed at all.You can make different types of Bitcoin address from private keys but you can't find any private key from any address.Here are illustration for @OP understanding

 

So if you don't have private keys or seed phrase for your wallets then you probably don't have access to funds to respective Bitcoin address which is the case with above two.So they are called burn btc address which cannot be recovered.

[o_e_l_e_o]

And people would trust these addresses 100%? The bitcoins sent to this address can be considered out of circulation or removed from total supply?

No, they can't. The above posts are not correct.

It is highly unlikely that anyone knows the private key to these addresses, since the addresses were obviously chosen because they represent a specific pattern. The chance of someone generating either of those addresses (or any specific address, for that matter) at random is around 1 in 2¹⁶⁰. However, those address do have a private key (actually many private keys) provided the associated public key is valid, but we are almost certain nobody knows what they are. However, to say that those bitcoins are permanently out of circulation is incorrect. Perhaps both elliptic curve multiplication and the hash functions RIPEMD-160 and SHA256 are broken in the future and someone can calculate the relevant public key and private key to those addresses. Incredibly unlikely, but we can't say for sure that it won't happen.

If you want to be able to provably burn bitcoin, then you should send them to an address which there is no possible way for them to be spent from. The easiest way to do this is by using OP_RETURN.

[Bitcoin-Eco]

And people would trust these addresses 100%? The bitcoins sent to this address can be considered out of circulation or removed from total supply?

No, they can't. The above posts are not correct.

It is highly unlikely that anyone knows the private key to these addresses, since the addresses were obviously chosen because they represent a specific pattern. The chance of someone generating either of those addresses (or any specific address, for that matter) at random is around 1 in 2¹⁶⁰. However, those address do have a private key (actually many private keys) provided the associated public key is valid, but we are almost certain nobody knows what they are. However, to say that those bitcoins are permanently out of circulation is incorrect. Perhaps both elliptic curve multiplication and the hash functions RIPEMD-160 and SHA256 are broken in the future and someone can calculate the relevant public key and private key to those addresses. Incredibly unlikely, but we can't say for sure that it won't happen.

If you want to be able to provably burn bitcoin, then you should send them to an address which there is no possible way for them to be spent from. The easiest way to do this is by using OP_RETURN.

Thank you very much for your reply. Looking into OP_Return. We have prepared Bitcoin addresses without keys. This was a no brainer but we started thinking. That requires TRUST. It seemed fine at first but it would always be a matter for debate later one "is it burnt or isn't it" . We wanted an irrefutable method of removing Bitcoin from circulation. So here we are. Once again thank you for the recommendation.

[odolvlobo]

If you want to be able to provably burn bitcoin, then you should send them to an address which there is no possible way for them to be spent from. The easiest way to do this is by using OP_RETURN.

Another advantage of OP_RETURN is that it does not create a permanent entry in the UTXO set. Sending to a burn address does.

[yazher]

I have always heard of altcoins burning address but not Bitcoin, I think right now it's not really necessary unless someone wants to steal it from you and you will leave no choice but to send it to those addresses instead of just giving it to them easily. Looks like this option can be used if we are running out of choice and of course no one really does that because before we come to this conclusion we still have so many options which include the mixers and other platforms to hide our bitcoins.

[Obito]

Yes they really do exist and some replies have already given an example of a burn address and to answer your concern about it being accessed, I think that the people who created this addresses have it in mind that no one, even them can't access it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

We have prepared Bitcoin addresses without keys.

And there is the issue with such burn addresses. How do you prove you do not know the keys to these addresses? You can pick an address such as the ones given above where it is incredibly unlikely you have managed to find a private key which gives such an address, but you cannot prove that you 100% do not know the keys.

We wanted an irrefutable method of removing Bitcoin from circulation. So here we are. Once again thank you for the recommendation.

So the next question is, what exactly are you planning that requires bitcoin to be provably burnt? Most of the time people want to set up such an address it is to distribute an altcoin or a reward of some sort to people who have sent bitcoin to that address. The problem with using OP_RETURN for this kind of thing is two-fold. Firstly, it is far more complicated to perform than simply sending bitcoin to an address, many people will struggle to do it, and most wallets don't support it. Secondly, you need a way of verifying that that particular OP_RETURN transaction was one you were interested in, but this could easily be solved by requiring the participants to include a specific string in their OP_RETURN data.

[Bitcoin-Eco]

We have prepared Bitcoin addresses without keys.

And there is the issue with such burn addresses. How do you prove you do not know the keys to these addresses? You can pick an address such as the ones given above where it is incredibly unlikely you have managed to find a private key which gives such an address, but you cannot prove that you 100% do not know the keys.

We wanted an irrefutable method of removing Bitcoin from circulation. So here we are. Once again thank you for the recommendation.

So the next question is, what exactly are you planning that requires bitcoin to be provably burnt? Most of the time people want to set up such an address it is to distribute an altcoin or a reward of some sort to people who have sent bitcoin to that address. The problem with using OP_RETURN for this kind of thing is two-fold. Firstly, it is far more complicated to perform than simply sending bitcoin to an address, many people will struggle to do it, and most wallets don't support it. Secondly, you need a way of verifying that that particular OP_RETURN transaction was one you were interested in, but this could easily be solved by requiring the participants to include a specific string in their OP_RETURN data.

So we are not accused of spamming we will reference our project we need OP RETURN for as “Alternative Chain Of Evolved Value” ACOEV.  We need users to be able to send Bitcoin to indisputably unrecoverable Bitcoin address or burn address. We have been calling these addresses “Annihilation Addresses” as a project specific reference for  ACOEV. Our initial plan was to use our own  Annihilation Addresses but these would always be in question. Would require trust that the keys where never saved. Lucius  brought some addresses to our attention that most could agree upon are considered a viable burn addresses 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr  and 1111111111111111111114olvt2 . You then mentioned “However, those address do have a private key (actually many private keys) provided the associated public key is valid, but we are almost certain nobody knows what they are” This  is concerning ..Will people question the foundation of our entire project because of some of the things you pointed out about these two commonly known as “Bitcoin burn address”.  

 Back to the utility of WHY. The function we are in pursuant of is pretty simple. A bitcoin user sends Bitcoin to an  Annihilation Addresses. If we are to use the above addresses We would simply use transaction details through explorer to verify the Bitcoin were in fact “Evolved’ or Burnt/ Removed officially from Bitcoin circulation in an undisputed manner. After checking all transaction details and making sure we are in chat or on the line with the specific user . Then we would issue the user  ACOEV at a ratio of 1 to 1.

 Your assessment of OP RETURN as having a learning curve or “struggle to do it, and most wallets don't support it “ as you put . These variable might rule it out as a viable solution for the utility we are looking for.

 Thank you very much for your time. It truly means a lot to have someone like yourself take the time out of your day to root out problems and provide solutions. Very rare in this day and age. People typically want to rant about “what wont work”
Or all the problems but never consider trying to offer a solution. Better yet try and solve them. Once again we are  grateful for your insight.

Edit:
A platform or tool to automate this task has been up in the air but cannot even start the work tell we have the definitive beyond question burn address. Doing it manually seems the most secure and might just be the best solution. Very labor intensive but the things worth doing are rarely easy.

[ranochigo]

You then mentioned “However, those address do have a private key (actually many private keys) provided the associated public key is valid, but we are almost certain nobody knows what they are” This  is concerning ..Will people question the foundation of our entire project because of some of the things you pointed out about these two commonly known as “Bitcoin burn address”.  

 Back to the utility of WHY. The function we are in pursuant of is pretty simple. A bitcoin user sends Bitcoin to an  Annihilation Addresses. If we are to use the above addresses We would simply use transaction details through explorer to verify the Bitcoin were in fact “Evolved’ or Burnt/ Removed officially from Bitcoin circulation in an undisputed manner. After checking all transaction details and making sure we are in chat or on the line with the specific user . Then we would issue the user  ACOEV at a ratio of 1 to 1.

Your assessment of OP RETURN as having a learning curve or “struggle to do it, and most wallets don't support it “ as you put . These variable might rule it out as a viable solution for the utility we are looking for.

No. The probability of anyone generating a private key that corresponds to those address is so astronomically small, which is the same as trying to break any other address given sufficiently random entropy. There is simply no reason for people to doubt whether you're generating an address that is in fact not intended to be a burn address.

Inclusion of OP_return is quite trivial, wallets like Electrum and Bitcoin Core all supports it. By parsing the blockchain for matching strings in the OP_return, you will be able to identify those which were burned for your purpose. That is not difficult and should be pursued if you don't want to contribute to blockchain bloat.

[thirdprize]

You might as well send it to any random address you can create (that has no activity).  That would be as safe as sending it to an "official" burn address.  Or you could send them to me and I will take them out of circulation.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

-For the private key breaking, there's always the possibility of brute-force trials like hashing & mining. Right now one of these addresses contains 78 million $ ( 76*10⁶ $), the other link is wrong, if a threshold is reached when the cost of breaking the key is less enough for the process to be profitable, it will certainly be done by someone (or even some country)
⟩»Or simply the one who originally published it knows the private key, I mean what can u do to him/her if claimed the money?
.
-I believe when u send some Btc out of circulation it is like u r giving them to the system of Bitcoin as whole; u add to scarcity of current trading volume & u give space for generating more as Satoshi has put a limit to total Btc ever.
.
-However, I also believe if u r doing this as a part of a deal to get another currency, the outside level of demand for this other currency will increase as well.

[Bitcoin-Eco]

You then mentioned “However, those address do have a private key (actually many private keys) provided the associated public key is valid, but we are almost certain nobody knows what they are” This  is concerning ..Will people question the foundation of our entire project because of some of the things you pointed out about these two commonly known as “Bitcoin burn address”.  

 Back to the utility of WHY. The function we are in pursuant of is pretty simple. A bitcoin user sends Bitcoin to an  Annihilation Addresses. If we are to use the above addresses We would simply use transaction details through explorer to verify the Bitcoin were in fact “Evolved’ or Burnt/ Removed officially from Bitcoin circulation in an undisputed manner. After checking all transaction details and making sure we are in chat or on the line with the specific user . Then we would issue the user  ACOEV at a ratio of 1 to 1.

Your assessment of OP RETURN as having a learning curve or “struggle to do it, and most wallets don't support it “ as you put . These variable might rule it out as a viable solution for the utility we are looking for.

No. The probability of anyone generating a private key that corresponds to those address is so astronomically small, which is the same as trying to break any other address given sufficiently random entropy. There is simply no reason for people to doubt whether you're generating an address that is in fact not intended to be a burn address.

Inclusion of OP_return is quite trivial, wallets like Electrum and Bitcoin Core all supports it. By parsing the blockchain for matching strings in the OP_return, you will be able to identify those which were burned for your purpose. That is not difficult and should be pursued if you don't want to contribute to blockchain bloat.

ranochigo , We can’t even begin to explain how much your insight  means to us. This feedback is priceless in terms of gaining full scope of the utility we are trying to accomplish. The fact you mentioned  "blockchain bloat" shows that you understand the specific issues that are important to us. Things some might say are trivial but stack up to something much bigger in the end.

[o_e_l_e_o]

No. The probability of anyone generating a private key that corresponds to those address is so astronomically small, which is the same as trying to break any other address given sufficiently random entropy. There is simply no reason for people to doubt whether you're generating an address that is in fact not intended to be a burn address.

The probability of anyone generating a private key to any specific address is astronomically small, and yet it happens thousands of times each day. Sure, you could create an address such as 1xACoEVxAnnihiLationAddressuH4xeM and everyone would be almost certain that no one knows the private key to that address, but coins sent to it are not provably burned. There exists a possibility, no matter how small, that someone either does know one of the private keys to that address, or the coins sent to it could be recovered in the future with major advances in computing.

If you want coins to be almost certainly burned, then an address such as the one I gave is fine. If you want coins to be provably burned, then you need to use OP_RETURN.

Inclusion of OP_return is quite trivial, wallets like Electrum and Bitcoin Core all supports it.

Trivial for you or me or OP maybe, but not trivial for the average bitcoin user who is storing their coins on a web wallet like blockchain.com or some closed source multi-coin wallet like Coinomi. Asking them to either recover their wallet via their seed phrase or export an individual private key and import either of these in to a new piece of software they are unfamiliar with, and then talking them through making a transaction with an OP_RETURN output is significantly more complicated than saying "Send some coins to this address".

[Bitcoin-Eco]

No. The probability of anyone generating a private key that corresponds to those address is so astronomically small, which is the same as trying to break any other address given sufficiently random entropy. There is simply no reason for people to doubt whether you're generating an address that is in fact not intended to be a burn address.

The probability of anyone generating a private key to any specific address is astronomically small, and yet it happens thousands of times each day. Sure, you could create an address such as 1xACoEVxAnnihiLationAddressuH4xeM and everyone would be almost certain that no one knows the private key to that address, but coins sent to it are not provably burned. There exists a possibility, no matter how small, that someone either does know one of the private keys to that address, or the coins sent to it could be recovered in the future with major advances in computing.

If you want coins to be almost certainly burned, then an address such as the one I gave is fine. If you want coins to be provably burned, then you need to use OP_RETURN.

Inclusion of OP_return is quite trivial, wallets like Electrum and Bitcoin Core all supports it.

Trivial for you or me or OP maybe, but not trivial for the average bitcoin user who is storing their coins on a web wallet like blockchain.com or some closed source multi-coin wallet like Coinomi. Asking them to either recover their wallet via their seed phrase or export an individual private key and import either of these in to a new piece of software they are unfamiliar with, and then talking them through making a transaction with an OP_RETURN output is significantly more complicated than saying "Send some coins to this address".

Your insight on this matter is absolutely priceless and thank you again for your time. Your points about OP RETURN are well received. You are correct in the lacking easy of use variable to OP RETURN for some. We would not want anyone held back from participation due to them having less technical know how. The simplicity of the “ONE ADDRESS” concept would be very easy to keep accountability. With your vast knowledge and keen insight. If you had to choose one Bitcoin address to be used as a burn address.. What would it be? and why? Also taking into account our utility we are seeking. In all actuality for our utility and to establish the validity we are after most public Bitcoin Burn addresses should do. The biggest thing is people understand our project Devs and community leaders WONT ever have access to the Bitcoin that are evolved “Burnt”. Removing them from circulation is very important for more project specific reasoning's.Once again thank you for taking the time out of your day to share your insight.