No the correct burner address is: 0x7C291eB2D2Ec9A35dba0e2C395c5928cd7d90e51 This is where you send all the funds you do not want Answer from CPTRS777 on reddit.com
BscScan
bscscan.com › address › 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Null: 0x000...000 | Address: 0x00000000...000000000 | BscScan
Address (Authority) | Balance: $60,864,047,395.98 across 30 Chains | Transactions: 1,134,584 | As at Jun-04-2026 02:15:57 PM (UTC)
BSCTrace
bsctrace.com › address › 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
BNB Smart Chain Address 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 - BSCTrace
BSCTrace is a blockchain explorer and analytics platform for BNB Smart Chain. It enables users to explore blocks, transactions and addresses on BSC
Is 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 a "burn address"?
No the correct burner address is: 0x7C291eB2D2Ec9A35dba0e2C395c5928cd7d90e51 This is where you send all the funds you do not want More on reddit.com
Permit sending to zero address for burn
Currently, the Metamask UI (both the old and the new) does not accept 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as a valid destination address for ERC20 token transfers. A user should be able to s... More on github.com
Videos
02:19
How To Create Binance Smart Chain Wallet Address - BSC Address ...
01:33
HOW TO GET YOUR BSC /BEP20 WALLET ADDRESS TRUSTWALLET #BSCADDRESS ...
01:30
How to find BEP 20 address(Binance Smart Chain address/BSC). : ...
04:29
Find BNB / BSC Network Wallet Address in Metamask - YouTube
14:52
BnB Chain Trust Wallet Tutorial for Beginners (Deposit, Swap, ...
02:40
How to Find BSC Address in Trust Wallet - Binance Address in Trust ...
Reddit
reddit.com › r/ethereum › is 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 a "burn address"?
r/ethereum on Reddit: Is 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 a "burn address"?
July 26, 2018 -
I see that https://etherscan.io/address/0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 owns almost $3 billion in tokens plus $3.5 million ETH.
Is this a burn address? I know in Bitcoin that one can send BTC to an address where no-one knows the private key. Is the same true in Ethereum? If someone wanted to prove that they had "destroyed" a token could they send it to the above-referenced address?
BscScan
bscscan.com › address › 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001000
BSC: Validator Set | Address: 0x00000000...000001000 | BscScan
eturns (CommonAckPackage memory, bool) { CommonAckPackage memory ackPkg; RLPDecode.Iterator memory iter = msgBytes.toRLPItem().iterator(); bool success = false; uint256 idx = 0; while (iter.hasNext()) { if (idx == 0) { ackPkg.code = uint32(iter.next().toUint()); success = true; } else { break; } ++idx; } return (ackPkg, success); } } // contracts/System.sol contract System { bool public alreadyInit; uint32 public constant CODE_OK = 0; uint32 public constant ERROR_FAIL_DECODE = 100; uint8 public constant BIND_CHANNELID = 0x01; uint8 public constant TRANSFER_IN_CHANNELID = 0x02; uint8 public con
Bscscan
goto.bscscan.com › address › 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001000
BSC: Validator Set | Address: 0x00000000...000001000 | BscScan
eturns (CommonAckPackage memory, bool) { CommonAckPackage memory ackPkg; RLPDecode.Iterator memory iter = msgBytes.toRLPItem().iterator(); bool success = false; uint256 idx = 0; while (iter.hasNext()) { if (idx == 0) { ackPkg.code = uint32(iter.next().toUint()); success = true; } else { break; } ++idx; } return (ackPkg, success); } } // contracts/System.sol contract System { bool public alreadyInit; uint32 public constant CODE_OK = 0; uint32 public constant ERROR_FAIL_DECODE = 100; uint8 public constant BIND_CHANNELID = 0x01; uint8 public constant TRANSFER_IN_CHANNELID = 0x02; uint8 public con
BscScan
testnet.bscscan.com › address › 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001000
BSCValidatorSet | Address 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001000 | BscScan
returns (CommonAckPackage memory, bool) { CommonAckPackage memory ackPkg; RLPDecode.Iterator memory iter = msgBytes.toRLPItem().iterator(); bool success = false; uint256 idx=0; while (iter.hasNext()) { if (idx == 0) { ackPkg.code = uint32(iter.next().toUint()); success = true; } else { break; } ++idx; } return (ackPkg, success); } } // contracts/System.sol contract System { bool public alreadyInit; uint32 public constant CODE_OK = 0; uint32 public constant ERROR_FAIL_DECODE = 100; uint8 constant public BIND_CHANNELID = 0x01; uint8 constant public TRANSFER_IN_CHANNELID = 0x02; uint8 constant pu
Etherscan
etherscan.io › address › 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dead
Null: 0x00...dEaD | Address: 0x00000000...00000dead | Etherscan
This address is commonly used by projects to burn tokens (reducing total supply).
GitHub
github.com › MetaMask › metamask-extension › issues › 4567
Permit sending to zero address for burn · Issue #4567 · MetaMask/metamask-extension
June 13, 2018 - Currently, the Metamask UI (both the old and the new) does not accept 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as a valid destination address for ERC20 token transfers. A user should be able to send a transfer to that address as an exp...
Author MetaMask