Can you explain why the transaction output has text message ?

[takas]

About sending message on trasaction, it's difficult,and many users curious about it.
Do you know why it's working ?
https://blockchain.info/tx/6edc4b82c9950f3deb1954d3fb6f846763aad8aead5e438eec287b3a20080388?show_adv=true

[newIndia]

About sending message on trasaction, it's difficult,and many users curious about it.
Do you know why it's working ?
https://blockchain.info/tx/6edc4b82c9950f3deb1954d3fb6f846763aad8aead5e438eec287b3a20080388?show_adv=true

Interesting. I checked it on blocktrail as well...

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/6edc4b82c9950f3deb1954d3fb6f846763aad8aead5e438eec287b3a20080388

[MultipliedCombo]

Well, I just did a quick search, and from this Reddit post (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/201ouk/what_does_unable_to_decode_input_address_mean/), the message means that the transaction was sent to an output address that doesn't currently exist. The Bitcoins that were sent still exist and aren't lost, someone would just need to find/make the wallet that matches the same output address as the transaction.

..That's what I understood from the post, I might be wrong, so you should probably read it yourself.

[BiTJack]

Basically the same thing i guess.

P2pool used to store its sharechain commitments (which is how it achieves trustless, serverless pooled mining) in a zero value anyone can spend output.  To clean up the utxo set some people spent all those outputs at some point. (that might have even been me making that txn, dunno).

It now uses a op_return... now that bitcoin core knows it doesn't need to track those, so there is no useless utxo to clean up.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Doing a quick search on OP_RETURN, this seems to imply that yes, the bitcoins(0.0001) are lost forever.

[DannyHamilton]

Do you know why it's working ?

Because the OP_RETURN code allows the transaction creator to include 40 bytes of data in an output that is not included in the UTXO.

Interesting. I checked it on blocktrail as well...

Yes, it is in the blockchain.

- snip -
the message means that the transaction was sent to an output address that doesn't currently exist. The Bitcoins that were sent still exist and aren't lost, someone would just need to find/make the wallet that matches the same output address as the transaction.

That is not correct in this case.  Take a closer look at the transaction.  There weren't any bitcoins sent to any address.  The creator of the transaction paid a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee to the miner that confirmed the transaction and created an output with an OP_RETURN code and some data.

Doing a quick search on OP_RETURN, this seems to imply that yes, the bitcoins(0.0001) are lost forever.

No.  There were no bitcoins in the output.

The input provided 0.0001 BTC of value to the transaction, and that entire 0.0001 BTC was paid as a transaction fee to the miner.  Therefore, there are no bitcoins "lost forever" with this transaction.

[Zawamiya]

i think this is because to the address it was sent doesn't exist yet
i wonder if someone get this address and see that money in his wallet at the time of creation

[Meuh6879]

About sending message on trasaction, it's difficult,and many users curious about it.
Do you know why it's working ?

stop using a "block reader" ... ? (or use featured options in virtual wallet ...)

[DannyHamilton]

i think this is because to the address it was sent doesn't exist yet

You are mistaken.

There weren't any bitcoins sent to any address in that transaction at all.

There was a transaction fee paid, which was claimed by the Slush mining pool when they included the transaction in block 335611, and there was an output with no bitcoins which used the OP_RETURN script. 

i wonder if someone get this address and see that money in his wallet at the time of creation

What address?  There isn't any address.

[Buffer Overflow]

Do you know why it's working ?

1 OP_RETURN (with up to 40 bytes of data) output per transaction is allowed inside a standard transaction.

OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable.