<p>That is not a valid Bitcoin address. It may be an address for an altcoin, although <code>-</code> is not part of the Base58 character set. It may also be a non-standard address encoding.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-08T01:38:29.730Z
2021-04-08T01:38:29.730Z
Ava Chow
<p>No, &quot;-&quot; is neither part of the base58 character set <code>123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz</code> used to encode non-segwit addresses, nor the <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#Bech32" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bech32</a> character set <code>023456789acdefghjklmnpqrstuvwxyz</code> used for native segwit addresses.</p>
<p>This &quot;address&quot; appears to be Blockchair's <a href="https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/s-272edf45031dd498e7b3ae89e11ff21b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">representation</a> of a malformed output script that received ₿2,609 in a series of transactions on 2011-10-28.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FcO3q.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FcO3q.png" alt="General info for &quot;address&quot; on Blockchair" /></a></p>
<p>Bitcoin Talk user genjix <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50206.0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">explains</a> that the output script <code>76a90088ac</code> corresponds to a malformed standard P2PKH script which gave the address as <code>0</code>.</p>
<p>A P2PKH output script <code>76a914&lt;pkhash&gt;88ac</code> is composed of the following instructions:</p>
<pre><code>OP_DUP (0x76), OP_HASH160 (0xa9), 0x14 (20 in hexadecimal, indicating a 20 byte push), &lt;pubkey hash&gt; (20 bytes), OP_EQUALVERIFY (0x88), OP_CHECKSIG (0xac)
</code></pre>
<p>whereas this <a href="https://blockstream.info/tx/111291fcf8ab84803d42ec59cb4eaceadd661185242a1e8f4b7e49b79ecbe5f3?expand" rel="nofollow noreferrer">malformed script</a> uses an <code>OP_0</code> instead of the pubkey hash:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Gnod8.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Gnod8.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<pre><code>OP_DUP (0x76), OP_HASH160 (0xa9), OP_0 (0x00), OP_EQUALVERIFY (0x88), OP_CHECKSIG (0xac)
</code></pre>
<p>Colloquially, these funds have been burnt by sending them to the address <code>0</code>, which is of course not a valid address. (Since <code>OP_HASH160</code> will always produce a 20-byte value, and that will never match <code>0</code>, <code>OP_EQUALVERIFY</code> will resolve to <code>false</code> for any pubkey and the funds are unspendable.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-08T03:43:05.323Z
Thanks. I noticed there are addressed with **0** and **l** as well. I assume all those are malformed and burnt as well.
s k
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-08T03:46:24.127Z
Presumably. I was able to learn about this by searching the internet for the string rather than trying to look it up on a blockexplorer.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-12T00:55:55.543Z
I just found out that **segwit bc1** is not base58 compliance.
s k
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-12T10:54:52.837Z
Yes, native segwit addresses are encoded using Bech32/Bech32m. Bech32 is defined in [BIP173](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki) if you want to read more. Bech32m is described in [BIP350](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0350.mediawiki).
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-08T03:40:19.117Z
2021-04-12T10:51:57.790Z
2021-04-12T10:51:57.790Z
Murch
<p>I came across address like this <strong>s-272edf45031dd498e7b3ae89e11ff21b</strong></p>
<p>In the <a href="http://addresses.loyce.club/blockchair_bitcoin_addresses_and_balance_LATEST.tsv.gz" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Address with Balance List</a></p>
<p>Is the '-' a valid character?</p>

<lost-bitcoins><p2pkh>
Is - a valid bitcoin address character
s k
# Is - a valid bitcoin address character

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-04-08)

I came across address like this **s-272edf45031dd498e7b3ae89e11ff21b**

In the [Address with Balance List](http://addresses.loyce.club/blockchair_bitcoin_addresses_and_balance_LATEST.tsv.gz)

Is the '-' a valid character?

**Tags:** lost-bitcoins, p2pkh


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-04-08. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

No, "-" is neither part of the base58 character set `123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz` used to encode non-segwit addresses, nor the [bech32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#Bech32) character set `023456789acdefghjklmnpqrstuvwxyz` used for native segwit addresses.

This "address" appears to be Blockchair's [representation](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/s-272edf45031dd498e7b3ae89e11ff21b) of a malformed output script that received ₿2,609 in a series of transactions on 2011-10-28.

[![General info for "address" on Blockchair](https://i.sstatic.net/FcO3q.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/FcO3q.png)

Bitcoin Talk user genjix [explains](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50206.0) that the output script `76a90088ac` corresponds to a malformed standard P2PKH script which gave the address as `0`.

A P2PKH output script `76a914<pkhash>88ac` is composed of the following instructions:

```
OP_DUP (0x76), OP_HASH160 (0xa9), 0x14 (20 in hexadecimal, indicating a 20 byte push), <pubkey hash> (20 bytes), OP_EQUALVERIFY (0x88), OP_CHECKSIG (0xac)

```

whereas this [malformed script](https://blockstream.info/tx/111291fcf8ab84803d42ec59cb4eaceadd661185242a1e8f4b7e49b79ecbe5f3?expand) uses an `OP_0` instead of the pubkey hash:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Gnod8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Gnod8.png)

```
OP_DUP (0x76), OP_HASH160 (0xa9), OP_0 (0x00), OP_EQUALVERIFY (0x88), OP_CHECKSIG (0xac)

```

Colloquially, these funds have been burnt by sending them to the address `0`, which is of course not a valid address. (Since `OP_HASH160` will always produce a 20-byte value, and that will never match `0`, `OP_EQUALVERIFY` will resolve to `false` for any pubkey and the funds are unspendable.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks. I noticed there are addressed with **0** and **l** as well. I assume all those are malformed and burnt as well.  
> **username_2**: Presumably. I was able to learn about this by searching the internet for the string rather than trying to look it up on a blockexplorer.  
> **username_0**: I just found out that **segwit bc1** is not base58 compliance.  
> **username_2**: Yes, native segwit addresses are encoded using Bech32/Bech32m. Bech32 is defined in [BIP173](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki) if you want to read more. Bech32m is described in [BIP350](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0350.mediawiki).  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-04-08. Score: 1

That is not a valid Bitcoin address. It may be an address for an altcoin, although `-` is not part of the Base58 character set. It may also be a non-standard address encoding.


---

