Send the coin to the address which you created a moment ago, and drop the key, done!
That's not 'polite'.Anyways the question in OP has already been answered.
Yes, I didn't hear a 'please' or 'thank you.'
Topic: Can coins be destroyed in a more 'polite' way? (Read 4117 times)
Anyways the question in OP has already been answered.
Yes, I didn't hear a 'please' or 'thank you.'
Send the coin to the address which you created a moment ago, and drop the key, done!
That's not 'polite'.Anyways the question in OP has already been answered.
Send the coin to the address which you created a moment ago, and drop the key, done!
Imagine a miner mines a block full of transactions, and those transactions paid a total of 3.5 BTC in transaction fees.
Imagine that miner sets his block reward to 25 BTC (instead of 28.5 BTC).
Couldn't you say that the 25 BTC block subsidy was created, and that 3.5 BTC in fees were mined out of existence?
Imagine that miner sets his block reward to 25 BTC (instead of 28.5 BTC).
Couldn't you say that the 25 BTC block subsidy was created, and that 3.5 BTC in fees were mined out of existence?
For further clarity, imagine the miner sets his block reward to 0 BTC. Then there's no question that the fees have been destroyed.
Sure, it doesn't involve fire, explosions, or lasers which is a pity...
Something to consider for Bitcoin Core 0.10.
We really need more professional coin destruction tools or at least add destruction button in Bitcoin Core. So people can easy destroy there coins.
Imagine a miner mines a block full of transactions, and those transactions paid a total of 3.5 BTC in transaction fees.
Imagine that miner sets his block reward to 25 BTC (instead of 28.5 BTC).
Couldn't you say that the 25 BTC block subsidy was created, and that 3.5 BTC in fees were mined out of existence?
The coins did exist. They were used as transaction fees. They were destroyed.
You could still argue about whether they just took the block reward, or accepted the fees and created under 25 BTC.Imagine that miner sets his block reward to 25 BTC (instead of 28.5 BTC).
Couldn't you say that the 25 BTC block subsidy was created, and that 3.5 BTC in fees were mined out of existence?
The coins did exist. They were used as transaction fees. They were destroyed.
If you accept 0BTC for a block (0 from fees and 0 from your reward of 25), then obviously yes, the coins used as fees cease to exist, but if they accept at least as much as the fees it's pointless to try to decide whether they were accepting from the fees or from the reward.
Thank you wumpus, you contribute alot.
We really need provable coin destruction!
That's exactly what can be done with an OP_RETURN output.There is provably no way to reclaim those coins, so they are provably destroyed.
Sure, it doesn't involve fire, explosions, or lasers which is a pity...
Coins can be mined out of existence (miner selects a reward less than the max allowed).
I wouldn't call that destroying them. Yes, it causes there to be that many fewer bitcoins in existence, effectively accomplishing the same thing as destroying them, but if the address created by the miner has less than the current block reward, the coins never existed, and therefore weren't destroyed.Honestly, this thread is pointless. bitcoins are not intended to be destroyed anymore than cash is made to be burned or any other store of value for that matter. If it's sacrifice you want to prove, there are other means. You could (though it's not recommended) create a brain wallet and shoot your brains out, for instance. I mean seriously, what is the point of this thread?
We really need provable coin destruction!
Coins can be mined out of existence (miner selects a reward less than the max allowed).
I wouldn't call that destroying them. Yes, it causes there to be that many fewer bitcoins in existence, effectively accomplishing the same thing as destroying them, but if the address created by the miner has less than the current block reward, the coins never existed, and therefore weren't destroyed.Imagine a miner mines a block full of transactions, and those transactions paid a total of 3.5 BTC in transaction fees.
Imagine that miner sets his block reward to 25 BTC (instead of 28.5 BTC).
Couldn't you say that the 25 BTC block subsidy was created, and that 3.5 BTC in fees were mined out of existence?
The coins did exist. They were used as transaction fees. They were destroyed.
Starting from 0.9.0 transactions with a single OP_RETURN have become isStandard (so will be relayed). If you really need to destroy coins use those, as they are provably unspendable (unlike funny eater addresses) they do not burden the UTXO set forever.
How do you get more provably unspendable than an address that can't be generated?How do you prove that an address can't be generated?
If you want to permanently destroy the coins, there's really no way other than sending it to an address that's guaranteed not to have a private key, such as 1BitcoinEater.
Or you could read the thread and see there are multiple ways to destroy Bitcoins.
Coins can be mined out of existence (miner selects a reward less than the max allowed).
I wouldn't call that destroying them. Yes, it causes there to be that many fewer bitcoins in existence, effectively accomplishing the same thing as destroying them, but if the address created by the miner has less than the current block reward, the coins never existed, and therefore weren't destroyed.Starting from 0.9.0 transactions with a single OP_RETURN have become isStandard (so will be relayed). If you really need to destroy coins use those, as they are provably unspendable (unlike funny eater addresses) they do not burden the UTXO set forever.
How do you get more provably unspendable than an address that can't be generated?
wumpus: Are you going to implement better ways of coin destroying soon?
Maybe a BIPS should be written, how to correctly destroy coins.
Maybe a BIPS should be written, how to correctly destroy coins.
Starting from 0.9.0 transactions with a single OP_RETURN have become isStandard (so will be relayed). If you really need to destroy coins use those, as they are provably unspendable (unlike funny eater addresses) they do not burden the UTXO set forever.
If you want to permanently destroy the coins, there's really no way other than sending it to an address that's guaranteed not to have a private key, such as 1BitcoinEater.
Or you could read the thread and see there are multiple ways to destroy Bitcoins.
If you want to permanently destroy the coins, there's really no way other than sending it to an address that's guaranteed not to have a private key, such as 1BitcoinEater.
If you just don't want the coins anymore (why not?), donate them to the EFF or another organization that accepts Bitcoin.
If you just don't want the coins anymore (why not?), donate them to the EFF or another organization that accepts Bitcoin.
I know that none of the 50 coins generated in The Genesis Block can be spent, but what about other coins sent to that address? can they ever be spent?
The other "coins" sent to that address are spendable. Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs. The genesis block output is not part of the UXTO (initially as an oversight and now as backwards compatibility). Each transaction to an address is a new output and in the case of the genesis block address those outputs are spendable (because they are part of the UXTO).
I know that none of the 50 coins generated in The Genesis Block can be spent, but what about other coins sent to that address? can they ever be spent?
Why destroy bitcoins. So many newbies would be more tham grateful to recieve them, unless ur destroying them to create something else.
Would printing a paper wallet and then burning it work?
Jump to: