<p>Base58 addresses are case sensitive. With the correct capitalization, the address resolves fine: <a href="https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2</a>.</p>
<p>Addresses do not get any confirmations. Confirmations pertain to specific transactions not addresses. When a transaction is included in a block that constitutes the transaction's first confirmation. The transaction's confirmation count increases for every subsequent block thereafter. However, confirmation counts are independent for each transaction, even if they happen to pay to the same address.</p>
<p>The address <code>1111111111111111111114oLvT2</code> was first paid to 11 years ago, but has received outputs from a total 96,980 transactions altogether since, with the most recent transaction occurring this week. Your screenshot shows the times of the first and last transactions that involved the address, but the cited information does not indicate that there was no activity between those dates. Other than indicated in comments, none of the address's 133,555 outputs have been spent.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/w5Ejg.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/w5Ejg.png" alt="Scrip Pub Key details of 1111111111111111111114oLvT2" /></a></p>
<p>The address <code>1111111111111111111114oLvT2</code> encodes the public key hash <code>0</code>. Given that it was obviously picked via that public key hash, the private key can be presumed to be unknown as it would require someone to break the pre-image resistance of <code>RIPEMD-160</code> to find a corresponding public key, and then to solve the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem to find the corresponding private key, both of which are considered to be infeasible.</p>
<hr />
<p>Regarding the follow-ups from the edit:</p>
<ol>
<li>All discussed transactions involving
<code>1111111111111111111114oLvT2</code> were sending funds to the address. None of the funds sent to <code>1111111111111111111114oLvT2</code> were ever spent.</li>
<li>Yes, all the transaction outputs sent to <code>1111111111111111111114oLvT2</code> will remain in the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set forever.</li>
<li>The UTXO set is not a Merkle tree.</li>
<li>Numerous of the transactions sending funds to <code>1111111111111111111114oLvT2</code> have more than one output. Some of the other outputs are <code>OP_RETURN</code> outputs. Outputs cannot both be <code>OP_RETURN</code> and send to an address at the same time, it's one or the other.</li>
<li><code>OP_RETURN</code> outputs are not part of the UTXO set.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:34:07.867Z
Meaning it is a burn address & apparently someone succeeded in finding a private key???? Also, the UTXOs count means this address is holding 131,695 ie more than 2¹⁷ UTXOs at that time?
ShAr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:37:15.610Z
Huh? The address 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 has been paid to by 96,980 transactions, receiving a total of 133,555 outputs and has never been spent from.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T19:23:17.193Z
To be honest I still don't understand why only confirmations started to appear this week & not in all the previous 11yrs. However, I got my own confirmation about the idea in here https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106957/can-utxos-lifespan-be-predicted, with one address holding more than 2¹⁷ UTXOs that will reside in the Merkle Tree forever something has to be done https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5343748.0
ShAr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T19:31:16.303Z
I don't understand how you got the impression that "only confirmations started to appear this week & not in all the previous 11yrs", that is not an accurate description of what's happening.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T19:44:18.770Z
Can u show me any confirmations before that?and  I said I honestly don't understand what is exactly happening, even UTXOs maybe not counted in the Merkle Tree as they're in OP_Return
ShAr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T19:51:01.043Z
Uhm, I'm a bit puzzled. Are you aware that each box on the blockexplorer address page you linked shows a different transaction? E.g. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/a81b3301ce37f60b26aaa12bb5ea6999dc435fafe2dcd9c02685626ca348c602 was included in block 687044, https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/2c5a268f347ca3b2d39c84b10a209531d110570d5b291fd2da866cb5f2e25d91 was included in 687034.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T19:53:03.347Z
Here's a tx from 2016: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/da9c4273768e70227f4d5889c9281e01e34e888387a0ebfa4ee8cc66954ec3f9
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:19:40.960Z
2021-08-16T20:10:37.567Z
2021-08-16T20:10:37.567Z
Murch
<p>Can anyone explain why the burn address
<a href="https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1111111111111111111114oLvT2</a> started receiving confirmations only on 8th June? 1st transaction is 11yrs?</p>
<p>I thought a burn address doesn't get any confirmations, especially all I checked are through OP_return?
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/uZW7x.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/uZW7x.jpg" alt="transactions from 11yrs with no confirmation" /></a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/m1Am8.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/m1Am8.jpg" alt="10-20 confirmations started 8/6/2021, by now reached about 365 or something" /></a></p>
<p>Also, the same address gives an error here:
<a href="https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2</a>
.
-I knew that addresses r case sensitive, that's why it originally gave an error, so changed L,T to upper case
-Still don't understand (not convinced with) the confirmations issue, and I think the 2016 Transaction presented in the Comment is from another address (if so, then it's out of my Q context)
-Finally, adding a more curiosity Q from comments to main:
Will all these 133,555 UTXOs (more than 2¹⁷) in this address reside in the system Merkle Tree forever? or  No because they appear in OP_Return ?</p>
<p>The written answer does not answer the main point of the Q:</p>
<p>1-it explains that confirmations are to TXs not addresses, well I know that &amp; my Q was that none of the TXs that transferred money to this address got confirmed before 8/6/2021</p>
<p>2-The answer re explains the fact that this is a burn address because it's from key &quot;0&quot;, which means yes it should not get confirmations?</p>
<p>3-Followed the answer is a comment showing a confirmation from 2016 to a completely different address?! which is misleading &amp; does not give an answer?</p>
<p>4-The 2016 Comment was divided into 3 consecutive comments by the same person before me replying, which reached the comments limit and I had to write here with the only other option a private chat with that person????</p>
<p>-To be fair, I gained 2 infos from the answer:
1-Addresses r case sensitive
2-The given address is the hash of public key zero</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:01:22.513Z
Base58 addresses are case sensitive and you changed the capitalization: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2. You also answered your own question, the address is a regular address and has nothing to do with OP_RETURN outputs.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:04:49.933Z
Ok, thanks that's part of the Q;  now why the sudden confirmations?
ShAr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:18:51.947Z
The address is published as a burn address, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5342023.msg57185238#msg57185238. and didn't spend anything or got any confirmations even in old TXs until this week 8/6/2021
ShAr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T18:20:28.013Z
because somebody sent  to it?
Mike D
<address><confirmations><base58>
Why is this burn address starting to get confirmations?
ShAr
# Why is this burn address starting to get confirmations?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-06-14)

Can anyone explain why the burn address
[1111111111111111111114oLvT2](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2) started receiving confirmations only on 8th June? 1st transaction is 11yrs?

I thought a burn address doesn't get any confirmations, especially all I checked are through OP\_return?
[![transactions from 11yrs with no confirmation](https://i.sstatic.net/uZW7x.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/uZW7x.jpg)
[![10-20 confirmations started 8/6/2021, by now reached about 365 or something](https://i.sstatic.net/m1Am8.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/m1Am8.jpg)

Also, the same address gives an error here:
<https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2>
.
-I knew that addresses r case sensitive, that's why it originally gave an error, so changed L,T to upper case
-Still don't understand (not convinced with) the confirmations issue, and I think the 2016 Transaction presented in the Comment is from another address (if so, then it's out of my Q context)
-Finally, adding a more curiosity Q from comments to main:
Will all these 133,555 UTXOs (more than 2¹⁷) in this address reside in the system Merkle Tree forever? or No because they appear in OP\_Return ?

The written answer does not answer the main point of the Q:

1-it explains that confirmations are to TXs not addresses, well I know that & my Q was that none of the TXs that transferred money to this address got confirmed before 8/6/2021

2-The answer re explains the fact that this is a burn address because it's from key "0", which means yes it should not get confirmations?

3-Followed the answer is a comment showing a confirmation from 2016 to a completely different address?! which is misleading & does not give an answer?

4-The 2016 Comment was divided into 3 consecutive comments by the same person before me replying, which reached the comments limit and I had to write here with the only other option a private chat with that person????

-To be fair, I gained 2 infos from the answer:
1-Addresses r case sensitive
2-The given address is the hash of public key zero

**Tags:** address, confirmations, base58

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Base58 addresses are case sensitive and you changed the capitalization: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2. You also answered your own question, the address is a regular address and has nothing to do with OP_RETURN outputs.  
> **username_0**: Ok, thanks that's part of the Q;  now why the sudden confirmations?  
> **username_0**: The address is published as a burn address, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5342023.msg57185238#msg57185238. and didn't spend anything or got any confirmations even in old TXs until this week 8/6/2021  
> **username_2**: because somebody sent  to it?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-06-14. Score: 2

Base58 addresses are case sensitive. With the correct capitalization, the address resolves fine: <https://blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2>.

Addresses do not get any confirmations. Confirmations pertain to specific transactions not addresses. When a transaction is included in a block that constitutes the transaction's first confirmation. The transaction's confirmation count increases for every subsequent block thereafter. However, confirmation counts are independent for each transaction, even if they happen to pay to the same address.

The address `1111111111111111111114oLvT2` was first paid to 11 years ago, but has received outputs from a total 96,980 transactions altogether since, with the most recent transaction occurring this week. Your screenshot shows the times of the first and last transactions that involved the address, but the cited information does not indicate that there was no activity between those dates. Other than indicated in comments, none of the address's 133,555 outputs have been spent.

[![Scrip Pub Key details of 1111111111111111111114oLvT2](https://i.sstatic.net/w5Ejg.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/w5Ejg.png)

The address `1111111111111111111114oLvT2` encodes the public key hash `0`. Given that it was obviously picked via that public key hash, the private key can be presumed to be unknown as it would require someone to break the pre-image resistance of `RIPEMD-160` to find a corresponding public key, and then to solve the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem to find the corresponding private key, both of which are considered to be infeasible.

---

Regarding the follow-ups from the edit:

1. All discussed transactions involving
   `1111111111111111111114oLvT2` were sending funds to the address. None of the funds sent to `1111111111111111111114oLvT2` were ever spent.
2. Yes, all the transaction outputs sent to `1111111111111111111114oLvT2` will remain in the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set forever.
3. The UTXO set is not a Merkle tree.
4. Numerous of the transactions sending funds to `1111111111111111111114oLvT2` have more than one output. Some of the other outputs are `OP_RETURN` outputs. Outputs cannot both be `OP_RETURN` and send to an address at the same time, it's one or the other.
5. `OP_RETURN` outputs are not part of the UTXO set.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Meaning it is a burn address & apparently someone succeeded in finding a private key???? Also, the UTXOs count means this address is holding 131,695 ie more than 2¹⁷ UTXOs at that time?  
> **username_1**: Huh? The address 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 has been paid to by 96,980 transactions, receiving a total of 133,555 outputs and has never been spent from.  
> **username_0**: To be honest I still don't understand why only confirmations started to appear this week & not in all the previous 11yrs. However, I got my own confirmation about the idea in here https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106957/can-utxos-lifespan-be-predicted, with one address holding more than 2¹⁷ UTXOs that will reside in the Merkle Tree forever something has to be done https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5343748.0  
> **username_1**: I don't understand how you got the impression that "only confirmations started to appear this week & not in all the previous 11yrs", that is not an accurate description of what's happening.  
> **username_0**: Can u show me any confirmations before that?and  I said I honestly don't understand what is exactly happening, even UTXOs maybe not counted in the Merkle Tree as they're in OP_Return  
> **username_1**: Uhm, I'm a bit puzzled. Are you aware that each box on the blockexplorer address page you linked shows a different transaction? E.g. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/a81b3301ce37f60b26aaa12bb5ea6999dc435fafe2dcd9c02685626ca348c602 was included in block 687044, https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/2c5a268f347ca3b2d39c84b10a209531d110570d5b291fd2da866cb5f2e25d91 was included in 687034.  
> **username_1**: Here's a tx from 2016: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/da9c4273768e70227f4d5889c9281e01e34e888387a0ebfa4ee8cc66954ec3f9  

---

