- snip -
As a simple example take a look at this transaction:
- snip -
I see. Thanks for turning up that example. So, I think you're emphasizing that because the output is a script the script coulde be malformed, unconventional, etc and therefore no output address(es) could be found for that. Are all of these cases unspendable bitcoins?
No, they are not
all unspendable, some are. Some aren't. The one I provided as an example is not spendable. It was just the fastest and easiest type for me to find an example of. There are other types that are spendable.
How can someone satisify the requirements to spend the bitcoins sent to that output which is not representatble as an address?
"That output" cannot be spent. There is no scriptSig that can be provided in an input that will satisfy that particular script
EDIT: Actually, heh, maybe a total of zero satoshis sent to the unrepresentable-as-address output doesn't provide a good situation for your to explain how they could be spent.
Correct. That was only intended as an example of how outputs don't have to be encode-able as addresses. That particular output uses a single output script command (OP_RETURN) followed by arbitrary data.
But if that had been a non-zero output to that unrepresentable-as-address output, could it be spent?
No, that particular output is unspendable. It was only intended as an example of how transaction outputs that the network considers "valid" aren't always encode-able as addresses. There are other output scripts that can be spent, but which cannot be encoded as addresses.
Here's an example of an output that is spendable (and was spent) that cannot be encoded as any of the standard address formats:
https://blockchain.info/tx/b8fd633e7713a43d5ac87266adc78444669b987a56b3a65fb92d58c2c4b0e84d