user132236: I'm interested in the different ways in which bitcoin can be burnt. I can see three ways:

Send coins to a 'made-up' address. There's no way to distinguish it from a real address (so the transaction will not be rejected), except that no-one has the private key
Send a de minimis amount (e.g. 1 SAT) to an address which already holds coins. These will get 'overwritten' and thence lost
Begin an output address with OP_RETURN

Both (2) and (3) demonstrate that coins are destroyed. (1) relies on trust.
Firstly, are the above descriptions accurate (and am I using terminology correctly)?
Secondly, are there any other way of destroying coins?
Finally, in reality do either (2) or (3) represent a material loss of coins?

user128539: there are indeed several ways of burning bitcoin:
comment on 1: you dont have to rely on trust, you can send bitcoin to 1111111111111111111114oLvT2. This address is spendable with if you have a keypair with RIPEMD160(SHA256(publicKey)) == 0 which nobody has (yet)
comment on 2: you can't send amounts under the dust limit (transactions doing that are not relayed) and those coins will not be burnt if the owner of the address spends them and thereby paying more fees than the UTXO is worth. Note that the fees are going to the miner and are thus not burnt
comment on 3: i think you meant scriptPubKey not address. it creates a provably unspendable transaction output
number 4: a miner can claim less bitcoins in his coinbase output. consensus rules only disallow claiming more, and coins cant go to fee in a coinbase transaction

132236: <p>I'm interested in the different ways in which bitcoin can be burnt. I can see three ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>Send coins to a 'made-up' address. There's no way to distinguish it from a real address (so the transaction will not be rejected), except that no-one has the private key</li>
<li>Send a de minimis amount (e.g. 1 SAT) to an address which already holds coins. These will get 'overwritten' and thence lost</li>
<li>Begin an output address with OP_RETURN</li>
</ol>
<p>Both (2) and (3) demonstrate that coins are destroyed. (1) relies on trust.</p>
<p>Firstly, are the above descriptions accurate (and am I using terminology correctly)?
Secondly, are there any other way of destroying coins?
Finally, in reality do either (2) or (3) represent a material loss of coins?</p>
 128539: <p>there are indeed several ways of burning bitcoin:</p>
<p>comment on 1: you dont have to rely on trust, you can send bitcoin to 1111111111111111111114oLvT2. This address is spendable with if you have a keypair with <code>RIPEMD160(SHA256(publicKey)) == 0</code> which nobody has (yet)</p>
<p>comment on 2: you can't send amounts under the dust limit (transactions doing that are not relayed) and those coins will not be burnt if the owner of the address spends them and thereby paying more fees than the UTXO is worth. Note that the fees are going to the miner and are thus not burnt</p>
<p>comment on 3: i think you meant scriptPubKey not address. it creates a provably unspendable transaction output</p>
<p>number 4: a miner can claim less bitcoins in his coinbase output. consensus rules only disallow claiming <em>more</em>, and coins cant go to fee in a coinbase transaction</p>
