<p>Those transactions spend Pay-To-Pubkey outputs. These are not special or strange and are actually the very first kind of outputs to ever exist in Bitcoin. These outputs simply do not have an associated address type which is why block explorers do not show an address for them.</p>

<p>Also, just because a block explorer can't show an address type does not mean that Bitcoin Core can't parse it. Block explorers don't just use Bitcoin Core, and Bitcoin Core actually does not display addresses for inputs.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-06T22:26:55.810Z
Ah, it’s because they are pay to pubkey input addresses can’t be decoded ?
user2284570
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-06T23:07:15.127Z
Yes. P2PK outputs do not have associated addresses.
Ava Chow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-07T08:34:51.487Z
Thank you, and what’s the second output address of this transaction : https://blockexplorer.com/tx/eb3b82c0884e3efa6d8b0be55b4915eb20be124c9766245bcc7f34fdac32bccb ?
user2284570
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-07T16:56:00.970Z
@user2284570 That looks like one of the (test) transactions for BIP17, which was never adopted (BIP16 was instead).
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-07T19:17:31.703Z
@PieterWuille How did it pass despite being non standard?
user2284570
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-07T20:40:24.617Z
Non-standard is still valid. Standardness is a node relay policy, not a consensus rule. Non-standard just means a node will not relay the transaction. However it is still valid and can be included in a block and nodes will accept it.
Ava Chow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-07T20:54:51.650Z
That's the point. How can it be included without being relayed first?
user2284570
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-07T21:00:12.350Z
By mining it yourself, or having an agreement with a miner/pool to include it.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T10:06:31.593Z
@PieterWuille but if it’s not in the mempool of unconfirmed transactions in first place, then it can’t be mined ? And as far I know there had never been such kind of agreement between a mining pool and someone else to broadcast transactions that would be rejected.
user2284570
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T12:57:54.107Z
@user2284570 Standardness is a local policy; anyone is free to run modified software with different standardness rules. And several miners historically have offered including nonstandard transactions for payment.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T15:15:35.097Z
@PieterWuille which miners historically offered this ?
user2284570
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-08T15:19:49.177Z
At least eligius did, but if you mine yourself (which may have been the case for the transaction you're referring to), you can put in a block whatever you want.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-06T21:49:11.287Z
2019-04-06T21:49:11.287Z
Ava Chow
<p>It seems Deepbit uses a strange format for it’s transactions on the addresses it owned. For example, in <a href="https://blockexplorer.com/tx/9ba48b5ba54822f67cc2de91a96d05a9fb01ee0f5074703e1b1f49dc91cda831" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this transaction</a> all inputs but 3 comes from Deepbit. Even Bitcoin core can’t decode addresses or scripts from transactions launched by Deepbit.
This seems to apply to <a href="https://blockexplorer.com/tx/3c0570d471a46e02c6296e2b515c11e790e7f323d93d654320a0d5c9b7887a7d" rel="nofollow noreferrer">all transactions</a></p>

<p>That time it’s not SegWit. It’s not even Pay to Script since they didn’t exists at that time (and it’s about<code>1V</code>addresses). How those inputs are specials, and what’s the purpose ?</p>

<transactions><script>
What did Deepbit to make their inputs special on transactions?
user2284570
# What did Deepbit to make their inputs special on transactions?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-06)

It seems Deepbit uses a strange format for it’s transactions on the addresses it owned. For example, in [this transaction](https://blockexplorer.com/tx/9ba48b5ba54822f67cc2de91a96d05a9fb01ee0f5074703e1b1f49dc91cda831) all inputs but 3 comes from Deepbit. Even Bitcoin core can’t decode addresses or scripts from transactions launched by Deepbit.
This seems to apply to [all transactions](https://blockexplorer.com/tx/3c0570d471a46e02c6296e2b515c11e790e7f323d93d654320a0d5c9b7887a7d)

That time it’s not SegWit. It’s not even Pay to Script since they didn’t exists at that time (and it’s about`1V`addresses). How those inputs are specials, and what’s the purpose ?

**Tags:** transactions, script


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-04-06. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Those transactions spend Pay-To-Pubkey outputs. These are not special or strange and are actually the very first kind of outputs to ever exist in Bitcoin. These outputs simply do not have an associated address type which is why block explorers do not show an address for them.

Also, just because a block explorer can't show an address type does not mean that Bitcoin Core can't parse it. Block explorers don't just use Bitcoin Core, and Bitcoin Core actually does not display addresses for inputs.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Ah, it’s because they are pay to pubkey input addresses can’t be decoded ?  
> **username_1**: Yes. P2PK outputs do not have associated addresses.  
> **username_0**: Thank you, and what’s the second output address of this transaction : https://blockexplorer.com/tx/eb3b82c0884e3efa6d8b0be55b4915eb20be124c9766245bcc7f34fdac32bccb ?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 That looks like one of the (test) transactions for BIP17, which was never adopted (BIP16 was instead).  
> **username_0**: @username_2 How did it pass despite being non standard?  
> **username_1**: Non-standard is still valid. Standardness is a node relay policy, not a consensus rule. Non-standard just means a node will not relay the transaction. However it is still valid and can be included in a block and nodes will accept it.  
> **username_0**: That's the point. How can it be included without being relayed first?  
> **username_2**: By mining it yourself, or having an agreement with a miner/pool to include it.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 but if it’s not in the mempool of unconfirmed transactions in first place, then it can’t be mined ? And as far I know there had never been such kind of agreement between a mining pool and someone else to broadcast transactions that would be rejected.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Standardness is a local policy; anyone is free to run modified software with different standardness rules. And several miners historically have offered including nonstandard transactions for payment.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 which miners historically offered this ?  
> **username_2**: At least eligius did, but if you mine yourself (which may have been the case for the transaction you're referring to), you can put in a block whatever you want.  

---

