Your missing the point, that address for private key all zeros, used to be an invalid address
No, you're missing the point. The zero consisted RIPEMD160 hash you mentioned isn't the same as a private key equal with zero. And it didn't just used to be an invalid address, it's still and always be invalid, because it's below the secp256k1 range limit. On the other hand, 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 is a valid one, because there may be private keys that can satisfy the conditions to return that 160-bit hash once their public keys are put through SHA256.
That private key is invalid, has no associated public key, and therefore has no associated address. What address are you looking at that you think has been swept?
That's exactly what I thought, but then I remembered this thread:
Best way to destroy bitcoins? Send them to the value 0 address?Am I correct that the best way to destroy bitcoins is to send them to the bitcoin address with value 0?
Public key: 16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM
Privake Key (compressed): KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qYjgd9M7rFU73Nd2Mcv1
Private Key (uncompressed): 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreAbuatmU
Even with the private keys the bitcoins sent to this address cannot be spent as the keys don't fall in the allowed range (> 0).
I still haven't understood how he ended up to that address since there isn't a valid public key for private key = 0.