Re: Bitcoin-QT client question

[kuverty]

what about lost address  can i make  1000 new adress and hope some one to make that addressees ands send money to it

Yes, you can make for example ten million addresses very easily and then hope someone else makes the same address and uses it at some point. Is is extremely unlikely, anyway. You are better off if you get a word/phrase list and create bitcoin addresses from them using some popular way to do that. You would even actually make some money then, people scan these addresses right now. You can try this, generate a brainwallet with some trivial passphrase and send some money there, see how quickly it disappears.

To answer this thread, you cannot destroy bitcoins really but you can make them provably unspendable. Sending them to an address like 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr is an option, but it is possible that there is a private key that corresponds to that address and that someone finds the key, although it is not believable.

You still can make them provably impossible to spend, using the method described earlier on; that is, make them payable not to any address but to a script, you can make the script so that it is trivial to see the coins can never be spent.

[1714907450]

1714907450

[1714907450]

1714907450

[darkota]

It's a well known fact that 1GG3CLYd36tmU2X73rmHYzsTtaJcNwMcCC is the default address for destroying Bitcoins

*cough*

lollll

[klmist]

This has probably been discussed before but I want to raise it again...

can bitcoins be destroyed

You can burn fiat currency...so can you destroy a bitcoin? Is it possible? How would you go about it? How would it effect the economy and how would someone find about it if it occurred?

Discuss

It's possible.. make a transaction that has less output value than input value.. the difference would normally go to the miner as a large fee, but they don't have to collect it either.. if they don't claim it then the funds are truly gone. The original inputs have all been spent, but the equivalent value never arrived on any new outputs.

[Danydee]

This has probably been discussed before but I want to raise it again...

can bitcoins be destroyed

You can burn fiat currency...so can you destroy a bitcoin? Is it possible? How would you go about it? How would it effect the economy and how would someone find about it if it occurred?

Discuss

 
 
What happen men ??
 
do you have believed have seen Blocks, and have discovered afterward they did no exists? (they are not here)

[Gianluca95]

You can't destroy Bitcoin, but there is a method that allow you to not use never again.

This method is called "Proof of Burn"

Have you heard something about this?  

[ljudotina]

Well, let's be honest, there are no Bitcoin to be destroyed. They are not somewhere stored so you can destroy them.
"I have 1 bitcoin" means, that whole world (or to be precise, whole BTC network) agrees that adress i control is entitled to 1 btc. So basicly, you can be entitled to it, or not...you cant have em nor make em nor destroy them...they are not something.
To make it more "idiot proof", let's say we agree that there is currency called Ljudotinacoin. You have piece of paper and i have piec eof paper. We write how many ljudotinacoins youa re entitled to, and how many i am entitled to. Are there any coins? No...only agreement betwean two of us. Nothing to destroy. What we can do is say: ok this much of ljudotinacoins we wil entitle to "Flying Spaghetti Monster". As we all know that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster , those "coins" are "destroyed"....it's wrong terminology, but we all can stick with it...

[silversurfer1958]

It's a well known fact that 1GG3CLYd36tmU2X73rmHYzsTtaJcNwMcCC is the default address for destroying Bitcoins

*cough*

So if we all send half of our Bitcoins to that Nigerian Bitcoin address to be destroyed, then that will make our remaining Bitcoins worth more due to deflation,  that's cool man, thanks for sharing that address

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

It's a well known fact that 1GG3CLYd36tmU2X73rmHYzsTtaJcNwMcCC is the default address for destroying Bitcoins

*cough*

lollll

I don't think this is a true statement lol.

Trying to get donations?

If you wish to "destroy" your bitcoin then simply send a TX with an invalid output and the invalid output will essentially be destroyed if the TX is accepted by the miners.

[Danydee]

This has probably been discussed before but I want to raise it again...

can bitcoins be destroyed

You can burn fiat currency...so can you destroy a bitcoin? Is it possible? How would you go about it? How would it effect the economy and how would someone find about it if it occurred?

Discuss

 
 
What happen men ??
 
do you have believed have seen Blocks, and have discovered afterward they did no exists? (they are not here)

 
 
In case this is what motivate you to seek,
Go look some concepts about the Multiverse Heverett theorie.
(here)- That's right that the 'solution' tends more towards can not, rather than an exact solution. 'this if you are facing certain scenarios' 
 

[ajareselde]

It's a well known fact that 1GG3CLYd36tmU2X73rmHYzsTtaJcNwMcCC is the default address for destroying Bitcoins

*cough*

lollll

hahaha i laughet so hard.
any takers so far ?

back to OP; why in the worly would you want to destroy them anyways ?!

[Peter R]

Like Danny said on the first page of this thread:

   - Miners can make bitcoins vanish by claiming less than the allowable block reward when they solve a block.

   - Although regular users can't make coins vanish, they can make them provably unspendable as described below. 

Miners (or mining pools) receive as their block reward, the sum of the block subsidy (currently 25 BTC) AND the total transaction fees paid by all transactions included in the block.

They do this by creating a special transaction that has no inputs, and assigns outputs that do not exceed this sum to any addresses (or scripts) that they like.

Notice, that I said they assign outputs that do not exceed this sum.

In other words, the protocol is perfectly happy to let a miner assign LESS than the reward that they are due in this transaction.

This has happened in the past accidentally.  It is not likely to happen intentionally, but that doesn't mean it can't.

If they assign between 0.00000001 BTC and 25 BTC less than they are due, then you could just say they are accepting the fees, and reducing the number of new bitcoins created.

If the reward they assign in the transaction falls short of what they are due by more than 25 BTC, then clearly, some of the fees paid have vanished from existence.

The fees were paid by transactions, but they don't show up in any outputs, and no longer exist to be spent or to find in the list of unspent transaction outputs (UTXO).

Also note that transactions can be created that don't pay to an address, but rather pay to a script.  In particular, you can use OP_RETURN to create an output that can never be spent.  This script OP code is used specifically to mark an output as "invalid".  As such, it can immediately be removed from the UTXO, and can be considered "destroyed".

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

Provably Unspendable/Prunable Outputs
The standard way to mark a transaction as provably unspendable is with a scriptPubKey of the following form:

Code:

scriptPubKey: OP_RETURN {zero or more ops}

OP_RETURN immediately marks the script as invalid, guaranteeing that no scriptSig exists that could possibly spend that output. Thus the output can be immediately pruned from the UTXO set even if it has not been spent.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

It's a well known fact that 1GG3CLYd36tmU2X73rmHYzsTtaJcNwMcCC is the default address for destroying Bitcoins

*cough*

lollll

hahaha i laughet so hard.
any takers so far ?

back to OP; why in the worly would you want to destroy them anyways ?!

With bitcoin being as valuable as it is now there is no real reason why one would wish to destroy bitcoin.

Several years ago when BTC was trading well under a dollar it may have served an academic interest, or to see how the miners would react to a TX that destroyed bitcoin.

[Harley997]

Like Danny said on the first page of this thread:

   - Miners can make bitcoins vanish by claiming less than the allowable block reward when they solve a block.

   - Although regular users can't make coins vanish, they can make them provably unspendable as described below. 

Miners (or mining pools) receive as their block reward, the sum of the block subsidy (currently 25 BTC) AND the total transaction fees paid by all transactions included in the block.

They do this by creating a special transaction that has no inputs, and assigns outputs that do not exceed this sum to any addresses (or scripts) that they like.

Notice, that I said they assign outputs that do not exceed this sum.

In other words, the protocol is perfectly happy to let a miner assign LESS than the reward that they are due in this transaction.

This has happened in the past accidentally.  It is not likely to happen intentionally, but that doesn't mean it can't.

If they assign between 0.00000001 BTC and 25 BTC less than they are due, then you could just say they are accepting the fees, and reducing the number of new bitcoins created.

If the reward they assign in the transaction falls short of what they are due by more than 25 BTC, then clearly, some of the fees paid have vanished from existence.

The fees were paid by transactions, but they don't show up in any outputs, and no longer exist to be spent or to find in the list of unspent transaction outputs (UTXO).

Also note that transactions can be created that don't pay to an address, but rather pay to a script.  In particular, you can use OP_RETURN to create an output that can never be spent.  This script OP code is used specifically to mark an output as "invalid".  As such, it can immediately be removed from the UTXO, and can be considered "destroyed".

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

Provably Unspendable/Prunable Outputs
The standard way to mark a transaction as provably unspendable is with a scriptPubKey of the following form:

Code:

scriptPubKey: OP_RETURN {zero or more ops}

OP_RETURN immediately marks the script as invalid, guaranteeing that no scriptSig exists that could possibly spend that output. Thus the output can be immediately pruned from the UTXO set even if it has not been spent.

Wouldn't this essentially be the same as sending a TX with an invalid output?

[DannyHamilton]

Wouldn't this essentially be the same as sending a TX with an invalid output?

So, I posted about how to create an "invalid" output.

Then you came into the thread and said:
"If you were to send a TX with an invalid output then the BTC will be destroyed"

Adding absolutely nothing new or useful to the conversation.

Then Peter R reminds people of what was said on the first page because so many people seem not to be noticing it and posting nonsense.

Then you ask if my post about creating an "invalid" output would be essentially the same as sending a TX with an invalid output?

Oh, wait. I see now.  You have a PRIMEDICE ad in your signature.  That explains everything.  Nevermind.  Killfile updated.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Wouldn't this essentially be the same as sending a TX with an invalid output?

On the off chance that your response wasn't just affiliate spam, there is a difference between an invalid tx and an unspendable output.  An invalid tx is simply dropped from the network.  It will never become part of a block and thus the coins will never be destroyed.  An example would be a tx which has 1BTC in inputs and a 1.1 BTC output.  That is an invalid output.   To destroy coins requires an unspendable output.  OP_RETURN is a valid but unspendable output.

[bitgold]

You can make a gold coin or gold bar disappear but you can't destroy gold atoms.

[joshraban76]

I doubt it can be destroyed, but if for anon., you have many other choices.

[Harley997]

Wouldn't this essentially be the same as sending a TX with an invalid output?

On the off chance that your response wasn't just affiliate spam, there is a difference between an invalid tx and an unspendable output.  An invalid tx is simply dropped from the network.  It will never become part of a block and thus the coins will never be destroyed.  An example would be a tx which has 1BTC in inputs and a 1.1 BTC output.  That is an invalid output.   To destroy coins requires an unspendable output.  OP_RETURN is a valid but unspendable output.

I am not saying an invalid TX, but a TX with a invalid output (the technical term may be unspendable output - an output in which it would be impossible for private keys to be associated with).

I remember reading a forum thread several months ago (the actual thread was from several years ago) that eligius had confirmed a non-standard TX that contained a an output that it was impossible for a private key to sign a TX to spend. The issue was that the output was worth a lot (it was in the thousands of dollars at the time, but it may have been 6 figures, I am not really sure). I think some people were arguing that the TX should not have been confirmed.

There are also a site (https://blockchain.info/strange-transactions) that has a list of TX where blockchain.info cannot decode the output (I am not sure if other clients could potentially decode it or not - right now there is nothing on the list, but I have seen several TX on this site before).

What my question is, how is a pool destroying coins by sending part of the block reward to an unspendable output different from broadcasting a TX with an unspendable output (with your own coins)

[DeathAndTaxes]

I am not saying an invalid TX, but a TX with a invalid output (the technical term may be unspendable output - an output in which it would be impossible for private keys to be associated with).

Once again an unspendable output isn't an output that is invalid, it is an output that is invalid.  An invalid output means an invalid tx, and any block including it would be an invalid block and thus never part of the longest chain.  For example a native multisig output which is greater than 3 of 3 is invalid.  It will never be included in a block.

Unspendable =/= Invalid.  Unspendable is just unspendable.  It could be unspendable on purpose ("burning coins" or by accident (wallet software errors) but it is unspendable all the same.

gettxoutsetinfo

{
"height" : 305997,
"bestblock" : "00000000000000005c56379fc24b9b75c5c44c7afdb75f0c5b0801c56ec4f6bf",
"transactions" : 3305419,
"txouts" : 11452422,
"bytes_serialized" : 396365647,
"hash_serialized" : "10c14635b7ca03524099eb1bef0018480afddb67986b569fc9aa58bf1d16bb73",
"total_amount" : 12899789.79002854
}

To date 135.20997146  BTC have been destroyed.
(305997-210000)*25 + 210000*50 = 12899925.00000000 BTC
12899925.00000000 - 12899789.79002854 = 135.20997146

What my question is, how is a pool destroying coins by sending part of the block reward to an unspendable output different from broadcasting a TX with an unspendable output (with your own coins)

I have no idea what you are talking about.  An unspendable output is an unspendable output no matter who creates it.  Nobody said anything about a pool creating an unspendable output.

[Peter R]

Oh, wait. I see now.  You have a PRIMEDICE ad in your signature.  That explains everything.  Nevermind.  Killfile updated.

Since you pointed out this problem Danny, I've noticed that it is prevalent across the forum.  It is sad really because many of us take a lot of time out of our day to answer questions.  But if people are purposely being obtuse, requesting over explanations just to get paid for signature advertising, it's a waste of our resources.