<p>There is probably no bitcoin address that nobody can theoretically claim, since so many different private keys (256 bit) map to each bitcoin address (160 bit).</p>

<p>It has <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26539.msg332538#msg332538">been proposed</a> that <a href="http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE">1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE</a> should be used to destroy unwanted bitcoins.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-21T14:13:18.643Z
What do you mean by "nobody can *theoretically claim*"? What is your "theory" here? Because if you use any reasonable theory for polynomial computational abilities, no, polynomial agents cannot claim these addresses (given we key the private and public addresses correctly). This is the same theory that supports, for example, the unbreakability of RSA and ECDSA.

Specifically, for practical purposes, as you mention bit sizes, you'd need to brute-force a space of 2^160 which is impossible. The fact that the private key space is larger is insignificant.
dionyziz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T19:45:19.350Z
2012-05-24T02:45:56.017Z
2012-05-24T02:45:56.017Z
Chris Moore
<p>The funds of the address <a href="https://blockchain.info/address/16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><code>16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM</code></a> can't be spent. Why? What makes it different from other addresses?</p>

<blockquote class="spoiler">
  <p> The private key is zero. ECDSA private keys must be greater than zero. If not, funds of that address can't be spend.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-04T21:55:11.863Z
Why do they must be greater than zero? Is that only on Bitcoin as a rule or in general it cannot be 0 because of the math behind?
polespinasa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-23T14:29:41.357Z
2018-04-23T14:29:41.357Z
MCCCS
<p>The address 1FYMZEHnszCHKTBdFZ2DLrUuk3dGwYKQxh is a valid address made from an invalid public key which certainly qualifies as an effective /dev/null</p>

<p>It seems that the address was created by a bug in one particular wallet software.</p>

<p>By the way, don't burn money, it is the epitome of the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted."</p>

<p>rel:<br>
<a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/65969/invalid-public-key-was-spent-how-was-this-possible/67047#67047">Invalid public key was spent! How was this possible?</a> (it wasn't, actually)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-23T10:30:34.797Z
2018-04-23T10:52:41.260Z
2018-04-23T10:52:41.260Z
Willtech
<p>Probably this address would be pretty acceptable - <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/1111111111111111111114oLvT2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1111111111111111111114oLvT2</a>. It has a RIPEMD-160 hash of 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-21T02:04:39.157Z
@ChrisMoore This is incorrect; "in all likelihood" is inaccurate. If your claim was true, then this would apply to any existing bitcoin address. In fact, the probability of generating a private key for that address at random is 2^(-160), which is definitely computationally out-of-reach. This is comparable with the 2^(-128) probability of randomly guessing an AES key.
dionyziz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T19:40:36.390Z
Don't forget that there are roughly 2^(256-160) private keys for each bitcoin address, so it's very unlikely that none of them correspond to the address you specified, meaning that the coins are in all likelyhood claimable.
Chris Moore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T22:22:10.667Z
@ChrisMoore I believe 0x0 is an invalid public key, which would make it impossible to find a matching privkey.
David Perry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-24T02:43:13.370Z
@DavidPerry OK, but we don't send bitcoins to public keys; we send them to 160 bit hashes of public keys.  Any private key whose public key has the same 160 bit hash can claim the funds.  There are likely a massive number of private keys that are able to claim funds sent to 1111111111111111111114oLvT2.  It's just almost impossible to find any of them.
Chris Moore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-24T03:47:10.153Z
@ChrisMoore I see your point. It's statistically possible that some address exists which has no possible valid privkeys but every time I try to come up with a way of finding such an address the phrase "computationally unfeasible" comes to mind with it :P
David Perry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-24T06:21:20.337Z
Just make up any 160 bit number and convert to an address then.  They're all impossible to spend from unless you already know a private key for them, or get very very (very) lucky and find one.  As for canonical, which definition did you mean?  "authorized; recognized; accepted: canonical works" or
"Mathematics . (of an equation, coordinate, etc.) in simplest or standard form."  The 'BitcoinEater' one is probably most recognised.  The 0x0 one could be argued to be simplest.
Chris Moore
CC BY-SA 4.0
2012-05-23T18:13:33.647Z
2024-12-04T18:28:36.977Z
2024-12-04T18:28:36.977Z
ThePiachu
<p>Which canonical address is a legitimate address that nobody can claim?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T18:10:31.027Z
Possibly related - http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1852/323
ThePiachu
<address>
What is the Bitcoin equivalent of /dev/null?
ripper234
# What is the Bitcoin equivalent of /dev/null?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-23)

Which canonical address is a legitimate address that nobody can claim?

**Tags:** address

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Possibly related - http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1852/323  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2012-05-23. Score: 12 | Accepted answer

Probably this address would be pretty acceptable - [1111111111111111111114oLvT2](https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/1111111111111111111114oLvT2). It has a RIPEMD-160 hash of 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Don't forget that there are roughly 2^(256-160) private keys for each bitcoin address, so it's very unlikely that none of them correspond to the address you specified, meaning that the coins are in all likelyhood claimable.  
> **username_7**: @username_2 I believe 0x0 is an invalid public key, which would make it impossible to find a matching privkey.  
> **username_2**: @username_7 OK, but we don't send bitcoins to public keys; we send them to 160 bit hashes of public keys.  Any private key whose public key has the same 160 bit hash can claim the funds.  There are likely a massive number of private keys that are able to claim funds sent to 1111111111111111111114oLvT2.  It's just almost impossible to find any of them.  
> **username_7**: @username_2 I see your point. It's statistically possible that some address exists which has no possible valid privkeys but every time I try to come up with a way of finding such an address the phrase "computationally unfeasible" comes to mind with it :P  
> **username_2**: Just make up any 160 bit number and convert to an address then.  They're all impossible to spend from unless you already know a private key for them, or get very very (very) lucky and find one.  As for canonical, which definition did you mean?  "authorized; recognized; accepted: canonical works" or "Mathematics . (of an equation, coordinate, etc.) in simplest or standard form."  The 'BitcoinEater' one is probably most recognised.  The 0x0 one could be argued to be simplest.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 This is incorrect; "in all likelihood" is inaccurate. If your claim was true, then this would apply to any existing bitcoin address. In fact, the probability of generating a private key for that address at random is 2^(-160), which is definitely computationally out-of-reach. This is comparable with the 2^(-128) probability of randomly guessing an AES key.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2012-05-23. Score: 6

There is probably no bitcoin address that nobody can theoretically claim, since so many different private keys (256 bit) map to each bitcoin address (160 bit).

It has [been proposed](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26539.msg332538#msg332538) that [1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE](http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE) should be used to destroy unwanted bitcoins.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: What do you mean by "nobody can *theoretically claim*"? What is your "theory" here? Because if you use any reasonable theory for polynomial computational abilities, no, polynomial agents cannot claim these addresses (given we key the private and public addresses correctly). This is the same theory that supports, for example, the unbreakability of RSA and ECDSA.  Specifically, for practical purposes, as you mention bit sizes, you'd need to brute-force a space of 2^160 which is impossible. The fact that the private key space is larger is insignificant.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-04-23. Score: 1

The funds of the address [`16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM`](https://blockchain.info/address/16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM) can't be spent. Why? What makes it different from other addresses?

> The private key is zero. ECDSA private keys must be greater than zero. If not, funds of that address can't be spend.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Why do they must be greater than zero? Is that only on Bitcoin as a rule or in general it cannot be 0 because of the math behind?  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-04-23. Score: 1

The address 1FYMZEHnszCHKTBdFZ2DLrUuk3dGwYKQxh is a valid address made from an invalid public key which certainly qualifies as an effective /dev/null

It seems that the address was created by a bug in one particular wallet software.

By the way, don't burn money, it is the epitome of the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

rel:  
[Invalid public key was spent! How was this possible?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/65969/invalid-public-key-was-spent-how-was-this-possible/67047#67047) (it wasn't, actually)


---

