So there are only two different SegWit addresses, the first one is called Legacy Compatible, because it will work with all older software and old exchanges that have not updated and old wallets. These begin with the number 3.
As another user has said, you can't tell that it's a Segwit address or a multisig address until a transaction is spent from it, but because it begins with a 3, all older stuff will accept it.
The other address format is called Native SegWit, it uses Bech32, and it starts with bc1q or BC1Q and is not case sensitive.
QR codes with Native Segwit addresses are smaller if you encode them as ALL CAPITALS. Not all exchanges support sending to them.
All wallets don't care where inputs come from, so you can safely spend from SegWit addresses to pay to ancient format addresses that begin with a 3 or a 1.
Topic: Difference between SegWit addresses (Read 9564 times)
Hi everybody!
while studying addresses types and locking/unlocking scripts I ended up with an hand-written messy cheatsheet... I've gotten a PDF from it, hope it can helps!
https://medium.com/@baro77/btc-locking-and-unlocking-scripts-cheatsheet-ff6d515447de
while studying addresses types and locking/unlocking scripts I ended up with an hand-written messy cheatsheet... I've gotten a PDF from it, hope it can helps!
https://medium.com/@baro77/btc-locking-and-unlocking-scripts-cheatsheet-ff6d515447de
Hy guys,
I hope you give me some help, i was reading this posts but i still with doubts!
Im thinking about trying Segwit Addresses because we pay less fee and is suposed to be the future but im confused.
I noticed there is 2 types of Segwit addresses starting by bc1, like for example in this webpage:
https://allprivatekeys.com/bitcoin-address-format
SegWit mainnet (P2WPKH address): bc1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kv8f3t4
and
SegWit mainnet (P2WSH address): bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3
What are diferences between this 2 and where can i use a online address generator for both?
I can only find for 1st example in this website:
https://segwitaddress.org/bech32/#entropyRef
The first one is for P2WPKH: Pay to witness pubkey hash. This is your standard address type where you have a pubkey and can spend using that pubkey. The second type, P2WSH, is Pay to witness script hash. This is for anything else where you want to have some sort of script, such as multisig.I hope you give me some help, i was reading this posts but i still with doubts!
Im thinking about trying Segwit Addresses because we pay less fee and is suposed to be the future but im confused.
I noticed there is 2 types of Segwit addresses starting by bc1, like for example in this webpage:
https://allprivatekeys.com/bitcoin-address-format
SegWit mainnet (P2WPKH address): bc1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kv8f3t4
and
SegWit mainnet (P2WSH address): bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3
What are diferences between this 2 and where can i use a online address generator for both?
I can only find for 1st example in this website:
https://segwitaddress.org/bech32/#entropyRef
The distinction between the two types is exactly the same as the distinction between P2PKH and P2SH addresses. P2WPKH is analogous to P2PKH and P2WSH is analogous to P2SH.
Just like traditional P2SH (ignore Segwit wrapped P2SH), you can't just generate a P2WSH address from a private key. You need to have a script which then becomes the P2WSH address.
Hy guys,
I hope you give me some help, i was reading this posts but i still with doubts!
Im thinking about trying Segwit Addresses because we pay less fee and is suposed to be the future but im confused.
I noticed there is 2 types of Segwit addresses starting by bc1, like for example in this webpage:
https://allprivatekeys.com/bitcoin-address-format
SegWit mainnet (P2WPKH address): bc1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kv8f3t4
and
SegWit mainnet (P2WSH address): bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3
What are diferences between this 2 and where can i use a online address generator for both?
I can only find for 1st example in this website:
https://segwitaddress.org/bech32/#entropyRef
I hope you give me some help, i was reading this posts but i still with doubts!
Im thinking about trying Segwit Addresses because we pay less fee and is suposed to be the future but im confused.
I noticed there is 2 types of Segwit addresses starting by bc1, like for example in this webpage:
https://allprivatekeys.com/bitcoin-address-format
SegWit mainnet (P2WPKH address): bc1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kv8f3t4
and
SegWit mainnet (P2WSH address): bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3
What are diferences between this 2 and where can i use a online address generator for both?
I can only find for 1st example in this website:
https://segwitaddress.org/bech32/#entropyRef
I keep seeing things like "SegWit addresses are lower tx fees". Can someone explain why/how that is? Why does sending BTC to address A (old style) vs address B (SegWit style) incur higher tx fees? Aren't both transactions going on to the same blockchain and being processed by the same miners to be added to the same block?
Allow us to do a brief contrast to see how an awful lot rate you can save through the usage of segwit pockets. For everyday bitcoin transactions, the concern depends on price/(tx length). For segwit, a brand new concept called weight become introduced, so what topics now could be fee / (digital size) .
The above shows the digital length of various sorts of bitcoin transaction. i have referred to usually used one entry, two output transactions for numerous types. right here are the transaction ids for reference — regular, Segwit in P2SH, native Segwit. As you may see you can get a cool 38% discount the usage of native segwit !! using segwit wallets in truth has a two effect:
-You keep on transaction fees
-You transaction is smaller taking less space. This allows greater transactions to get into blocks. This reduces mempool congestion and decreases the common transaction price, because you are now competing with less unconfirmed tx to get into blocks.
Hi there, recently I found this website:
https://segwitchecker.com
Hope this might be helpful for you, guys.
For most Bitcoin addresses their difference is cosmetic: P2PKH (addresses that start with 1) are definitely not Segwit addresses; P2PWPKH addresses (Bech 32 addresses, that start with bc1) are obviously segwit addresses.https://segwitchecker.com
Hope this might be helpful for you, guys.
The only confusion is in P2SH addresses (those that start with 3), they could be normal P2SH addresses (multisig, usually), or P2WPKH wrapped in P2SH (Segwit addresses).
However the only way to distinguish between them is only when the UTXO is spent, and the redeem script exposed.
Until then it is impossible to distinguish between them.
Hi there, recently I found this website:
https://segwitchecker.com
Hope this might be helpful for you, guys.
https://segwitchecker.com
Hope this might be helpful for you, guys.
I keep seeing things like "SegWit addresses are lower tx fees". Can someone explain why/how that is?
SegWit transactions are smaller in size. SegWit basically 'removes redundant data' from the transactions.
This makes them smaller in size -> lower fees to pay (with same fee rate (sat/B)).
Not really.
Segwit transactions are either 10% smaller (native bc1 type addresses) or 15% larger (nested P2SH addresses for backward compatibility). Assuming everyone used bc1 addresess for payments, a 10% improvement in space efficiency couldn't increase blocks from 1MB max to the 2.2MB blocks that Segwit has thus far made possible.
What makes the difference is the re-structuring of transaction data within the Segwit blocks the network now uses. Signatures have been changed in a way that prevents a specific Denial of Service attack (a sighash based attack). This change was deemed by the designers of Segwit to allow blocks of up to 4MB to be safely accepted on the Bitcoin network. As part of the Segwit changes, transaction data & their signatures are priced separately, whereas they were both priced together before Segwit. Signature data is discounted, and that's why Segwit transactions are cheaper.
I keep seeing things like "SegWit addresses are lower tx fees". Can someone explain why/how that is?
SegWit transactions are smaller in size. SegWit basically 'removes redundant data' from the transactions.
This makes them smaller in size -> lower fees to pay (with same fee rate (sat/B)).
Why does sending BTC to address A (old style) vs address B (SegWit style) incur higher tx fees?
It doesn't.
Its sending FROM SegWit which leads transactions to be smaller in size. The output of the TX (which address type) doesn't matter.
Aren't both transactions going on to the same blockchain and being processed by the same miners to be added to the same block?
They are. Its the size which matters.
Even though the sat/B rate is the same you will pay lower fees in total because of the smaller size.
I keep seeing things like "SegWit addresses are lower tx fees". Can someone explain why/how that is? Why does sending BTC to address A (old style) vs address B (SegWit style) incur higher tx fees? Aren't both transactions going on to the same blockchain and being processed by the same miners to be added to the same block?
I've explained it before on this thread.Check this link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30732685
Jesus. Just another reason to stay off of Segwit.
If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
Oh no... screwed out of $10 worth of ShitCoin™ that I can't even sell because no reputable exchange has it listed... If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
In any case, if the fork happens to support SegWit (which several have)... you are not in any danger of missing out... The post that you quoted was referring to "airdrops" that require you to sign messages from a bitcoin address.
Yeah well I just sold another $250 worth of airdrop to some simp, but you should go ahead and keep pumping all of your BTC to those Segwit addresses... you're getting me a better price!
Recently I discovered that you cannot sign messages in SegWit address...
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Jesus. Just another reason to stay off of Segwit.
If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
This is wrong. SegWit addresses can be signed. The problem come in with different wallet providers that are using different formats of SegWit and tools to verify the signatures. Example : A few days ago, I signed an address with my Ledger and they use Nested Segwit (starting with 3).
The other person used a tool provided by Brainwallet that verify bech32 addresses (starting with bc1) and he could not verify that.
This is causing a lot of confusion and frustration, but hopefully things will sort themselves out as adoption of the technology increase and some kind of standard are chosen or more tools with more formats are developed.
Hello.
The problem is that those signatures and verifications are nonstandard. Core can't verify.
In ledger nano case if you look closely you will notice that the signature you made was done not by your segwit address, but for it's legacy counterpart.
If you look closely you will find that legacy address and that signature (made by the segwit) will be verified on brainwallet with that Legacy.
This is an known issue, and not ledger fault, but lack of standard.
Recently I discovered that you cannot sign messages in SegWit address...
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Jesus. Just another reason to stay off of Segwit.
If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
This is wrong. SegWit addresses can be signed. The problem come in with different wallet providers that are using different formats of SegWit and tools to verify the signatures. Example : A few days ago, I signed an address with my Ledger and they use Nested Segwit (starting with 3).
The other person used a tool provided by Brainwallet that verify bech32 addresses (starting with bc1) and he could not verify that.
This is causing a lot of confusion and frustration, but hopefully things will sort themselves out as adoption of the technology increase and some kind of standard are chosen or more tools with more formats are developed.
Jesus. Just another reason to stay off of Segwit.
If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
Oh no... screwed out of $10 worth of ShitCoin™ that I can't even sell because no reputable exchange has it listed... If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
In any case, if the fork happens to support SegWit (which several have)... you are not in any danger of missing out... The post that you quoted was referring to "airdrops" that require you to sign messages from a bitcoin address.
As far as I know, the only wallets that support signing messages with a SegWit address are Trezor (beta wallet) and Electrum. I have already tried many websites which were supposed to verify the message and unfortunately, all failed. I only managed to verify messages signed with a SegWit address using Electrum but I don't have my Trezor yet to test whether or not there are any problems or differences between them. It looks like many people will be confused while verifying messages unless someone creates a standard which could be implemented everywhere.
I just tried to sign a test message with both Electrum and with Trezor (same address, same message)... Electrum generated a signature as: Quote
IGUjYV7hZ6ZZeKrW/glIUKTeFOpCYnKmMTXjXG38oROWIlbCaoam/o8OzDlzoHuddj4UDvSjfYllDVE0KQ4i8Hk=
However, Trezor generated the signature as:
Quote
JGUjYV7hZ6ZZeKrW/glIUKTeFOpCYnKmMTXjXG38oROWIlbCaoam/o8OzDlzoHuddj4UDvSjfYllDVE0KQ4i8Hk=
1 letter different... otherwise, the signatures were identical!!?!
Obviously, the two wallets are unable to properly verify the message from the other due to the difference in the signatures.This issue on the Electrum github (https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3861) shows the current state of affairs... basically, no consensus... but it is being worked on.
Recently I discovered that you cannot sign messages in SegWit address...
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Jesus. Just another reason to stay off of Segwit.
If this is correct, 25% of all BTC that has circulated since the Segwit fork don't exist on the new BTC forks. Honestly, I suppose this would increase the scarcity and thus the value or forked coins. But anyone using Segwit is screwed out of their shares!
Recently I discovered that you cannot sign messages in SegWit address...
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
As far as I know, the only wallets that support signing messages with a SegWit address are Trezor (beta wallet) and Electrum. I have already tried many websites which were supposed to verify the message and unfortunately, all failed. I only managed to verify messages signed with a SegWit address using Electrum but I don't have my Trezor yet to test whether or not there are any problems or differences between them. It looks like many people will be confused while verifying messages unless someone creates a standard which could be implemented everywhere.
They are working on it.
There is already a draft BIP foto a standard for message signing
- https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/bip-0xyz.mediawiki
There is already a draft BIP foto a standard for message signing
- https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/bip-0xyz.mediawiki
Yeah, I learned about that, so I decided to keep my segwit wallet... i hope they solve this soon!
Anyway, it´s important that people know about this limitation before creating a segwit wallet and transfer their funds.
Recently I discovered that you cannot sign messages in SegWit address...
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
They are working on it.Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
There is already a draft BIP foto a standard for message signing
- https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/bip-0xyz.mediawiki
Recently I discovered that you cannot sign messages in SegWit address...
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Technically you can sign, but it cannot be verified.
Some wallets, like ledger, let you sign. But they will sign with a Legacy address, even if you are using a SegWit wallet. Really weird.
I even started a discussion about this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-possibility-to-sign-messages-in-segwit-address-in-future-2885058
For me this is a serious matter because I will lose many airdrops =/
Awesome answer! Thanks! Had no idea inputs & signatures took up 70% of the transaction.
Jump to: