Sending to an Inscription ID (or "teleburning" to an inscription ID with a derived (unspendable) Bitcoin address)

[huuep]

This is related to the Ethereum teleburn and #1588. In some cases, it is interesting to "burn" an existing inscription. But inscriptions are immutable, and a burn actually means something else, and it's not simply sending to any unspendable address. There's a use for sending an inscription to a Bitcoin address that is derived from an Inscription ID, in the same way an Ethereum NFT can be "teleburned" to an address on ETH that is derived from an Inscription ID. Can we define a standard way to derive a Bitcoin address from an Inscription ID that we can "teleburn" other inscriptions to?

Here's an example use case, related to the concept of digital ownership:

Let's say I have a block 9 sat, a block 78 sat, and an uncommon sat. All three are separate sats and owned separately. I'd like to actually merge them into a single ordinal, owned by a single person, and not on separate sats. One way to create this type of new relation is to create a multi-parent inscription. I use all three sats as parents in a multi-parent-child inscription. The child is a 4th sat that is separate from the 3 parents with a new inscription. I get the Bitcoin teleburn address of this new child inscription, and then send (or burn) the three parents to the new inscription. Now the three parent sats are unspendable and tied directly to the child inscription. The owner of the child inscription effectively "owns" all three parent sats in the new child ordinal becuase they have been "teleburned' there. This is a new type of ledger entry on-chain to represent the digital ownership of these sats, enabled by a teleburn address for an Inscription ID.