Bech32 adoption wiki page added tracking for wallets and services supporting Bech32m and P2TR addresses.
Bitcoin Core started to support Bech32m since v0.21.1 and P2TR will be supported from v22.0.
Electrum is supporting Bech32m addresses since 4.1.0.
Wasabi wallet is planning support for both Bech32m and P2TR with NBitcoin.
Trezor Hardware wallet is planning support for both Bech32m and P2TR.
BTCPay Server is planning P2PTR invoices and Bech32m withdrawal addresses.
Full information: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption
Topic: [LIST] Bech32 Bitcoin addresses Not supported (Read 741 times)
Trezor wallet is now supporting Bech32 addresses with their new Trezor Suite that can downloaded as software or used as web version, and Bech32 worked before with Electrum wallet so I am removing Trezor wallet from the list.
Why they should not adapt to support all the bitcoin addresses. This will create worries and confusions when doing transactions because you have to make sure that the wallet supports from the wallet you are using specifically bech32 bitcoin address. So far, a wallet I known good to supoort bitcoin address like bech32 is the mycelium wallet but then again you have to familiarize the different wallet addresses in mycelium being classiffied in the option of the bitcoin wallet address.
Armory wallet has a board here and the main developer (goatpig) is active here, so why don't you raise the topic of supporting bech32 addresses with him?
Even better, you can implement it yourself since it's open-source software any maybe he'll merge your contribution.
Even better, you can implement it yourself since it's open-source software any maybe he'll merge your contribution.
Binance exchange is now finally supporting segwit bech32 address format so I am removing them from the list, and I am hoping other services/wallets will follow them soon.
Quote
Fellow Binancians,
Binance has launched Segregated Witness (SegWit) support for Bitcoin (BTC) deposits (withdrawals are already supported). By selecting the BTC (SegWit) network, users can transfer funds to a SegWit (bech32) address.
https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/0fee417cefff41a8a8fbfeaf23d0ae01?ref=JLI1VBLABinance has launched Segregated Witness (SegWit) support for Bitcoin (BTC) deposits (withdrawals are already supported). By selecting the BTC (SegWit) network, users can transfer funds to a SegWit (bech32) address.
Why cutting off anyone
Correct, I talked with Chipmixer and for now they don't have any intention of using Bech32 address format.
One more website to look for Bech32 stats as well as other stats is txstats.com
This is the list of wallets and services that DO NOT support bech32 bc1 address format, so I won't add Exodus for now, but in future I plan to add separate list of popular services supporting bc1
As 50% of transactions are segwit, ChipMixer would be more private if nobody knows which address format it is using. For now, everyone can know for sure that 50% of the transactions are not CM chips.
Correct, I talked with Chipmixer and for now they don't have any intention of using Bech32 address format.
One more website to look for Bech32 stats as well as other stats is txstats.com
You should add Exodus wallet. They give bc1 address and also allow the creation. They also give legacy wallet address. So their wallet feature is ok.
This is the list of wallets and services that DO NOT support bech32 bc1 address format, so I won't add Exodus for now, but in future I plan to add separate list of popular services supporting bc1
There are many bitcoin wallets and mostly suported bech32 addresses. Mycelium is one which supported this kind of wallet that could enable you to send and receive bech 32 wallet addresses. If you wish OP to add those wallets that support the bech32 addresses then check these different wallets in this thread For your ready reference on bitcoin wallet posted by @erikoy.
As for ChipMixer, I believe they have very good reasons not to implement Bech32 yet:
I'm not sure I follow that logic. The anonymity from using ChipMixer does not rely on an attacker not being able to tell an output came from ChipMixer. Indeed, it is trivial to identity a ChipMixer output, given their characteristic funding transactions with 50 outputs of 0.016 BTC, or similar. It is therefore irrelevant if an output is legacy or Bech32 - it can easily be identified as a ChipMixer output either way. Rather, the anonymity comes from being unable to link these outputs to any inputs due to the time travel funding structure and set chip size.I've made some lists counting currently funded addresses in chips-size.
All addresses:
1 mBTC: 268782
2 mBTC: 69499
4 mBTC: 32541
8 mBTC: 16476
16 mBTC: 8782
32 mBTC: 4378
64 mBTC: 1940
128 mBTC: 1469
256 mBTC: 726
500 mBTC: 39785
512 mBTC: 616
1000 mBTC: 86705
1024 mBTC: 446
2048 mBTC: 93
4096 mBTC: 134
8192 mBTC: 32
Only addresses starting with 1:
1 mBTC: 216475
2 mBTC: 52087
4 mBTC: 24640
8 mBTC: 12498
16 mBTC: 6626
32 mBTC: 3485
64 mBTC: 1700
128 mBTC: 1318
256 mBTC: 658
500 mBTC: 19436
512 mBTC: 592
1000 mBTC: 52094
1024 mBTC: 435
2048 mBTC: 88
4096 mBTC: 132
8192 mBTC: 31
Only addresses starting with 3:
1 mBTC: 39821
2 mBTC: 13391
4 mBTC: 6801
8 mBTC: 3297
16 mBTC: 1944
32 mBTC: 781
64 mBTC: 209
128 mBTC: 119
256 mBTC: 58
500 mBTC: 14684
512 mBTC: 22
1000 mBTC: 27670
1024 mBTC: 7
2048 mBTC: 5
4096 mBTC: 2
8192 mBTC: 1
Only addresses starting with bc1:
1 mBTC: 12450
2 mBTC: 4016
4 mBTC: 1099
8 mBTC: 679
16 mBTC: 211
32 mBTC: 112
64 mBTC: 31
128 mBTC: 32
256 mBTC: 10
500 mBTC: 5665
512 mBTC: 2
1000 mBTC: 6940
1024 mBTC: 4
2048 mBTC: 0
4096 mBTC: 0
8192 mBTC: 0
Only weird addresses (anything with a "-" in it):
1 mBTC: 36
2 mBTC: 5
4 mBTC: 1
8 mBTC: 2
16 mBTC: 1
32 mBTC: 0
64 mBTC: 0
128 mBTC: 0
256 mBTC: 0
500 mBTC: 0
512 mBTC: 0
1000 mBTC: 1
1024 mBTC: 0
2048 mBTC: 0
4096 mBTC: 0
8192 mBTC: 0
Notes:
I'm using data from October 24 because of bandwidth problems
I only check the total balance, some addresses may have received funds several times.
Binance as a big exchange should consider adding bc1 address to their exchange. I don't know why they make it look impossible.
You should add Exodus wallet. They give bc1 address and also allow the creation. They also give legacy wallet address. So their wallet feature is ok.
You should add Exodus wallet. They give bc1 address and also allow the creation. They also give legacy wallet address. So their wallet feature is ok.
If ChipMixer were to, in practice, exclude users who haven't upgraded to Bech32-compatible wallets, how would that affect the anonymity set of the overall service? Would it matter, in your opinion?
The anonymity set would undoubtedly reduce, but even if it didn't, I wouldn't want to cut off some users from the service, particularly users who are using custodial wallets and are in the greatest need of privacy improving services. Even if they only offered legacy addresses for inputs, I can't see any real reason the chips for withdrawal aren't SegWit.When you say an output could easily be identified as a CM output, I assume you are talking strictly in terms of an heuristic analysis, and not necessarily in terms of blockchain analysis, correct? That is to say, if I merged and split my own outputs exactly as I have observed ChipMixer doing and then sent you some of those chips, you would assume they came from ChipMixer.
Probably. I don't really care where my bitcoin come from, so I don't really pay much attention. If you sent me an exact chip value, and I went back one transaction and saw a "classic" ChipMixer funding structure, then yeah, personally I would probably just assume it was from ChipMixer and not look any deeper. I'm sure that if I was interested and probed a bit deeper though I could figure it out, though. 
As it turns out, Bech32 only represents 3.5% of the network if measured by number of UTXOs, or 4.6% if measured by the number of BTC stored. From a privacy perspective, it seems reasonable for ChipMixer to continue holding off.
Segwit adoption is quite larger than this.
I made this topic about it, where I made a few charts.
I used blockchair data from LoyceV csv file.
This chart is the witness_count/transaction_count ratio.
As witness_count is the number of transactions in the block containing witness information, we can easily calculate the segwit adoption per block.
As the chart would become too noise with adoption per block, I calculate the adoption per month (witness_count per month / transaction count per month)
This is the result. Nearly 50% of transactions are segwit.
As 50% of transactions are segwit, ChipMixer would be more private if nobody knows which address format it is using. For now, everyone can know for sure that 50% of the transactions are not CM chips.
As for ChipMixer, I believe they have very good reasons not to implement Bech32 yet:
I'm not sure I follow that logic. The anonymity from using ChipMixer does not rely on an attacker not being able to tell an output came from ChipMixer. Indeed, it is trivial to identity a ChipMixer output, given their characteristic funding transactions with 50 outputs of 0.016 BTC, or similar. It is therefore irrelevant if an output is legacy or Bech32 - it can easily be identified as a ChipMixer output either way. Rather, the anonymity comes from being unable to link these outputs to any inputs due to the time travel funding structure and set chip size.Thanks for pointing that out. I may have been approaching this question from the wrong angle.
Two questions for you:
If ChipMixer were to, in practice, exclude users who haven't upgraded to Bech32-compatible wallets, how would that affect the anonymity set of the overall service? Would it matter, in your opinion?
When you say an output could easily be identified as a CM output, I assume you are talking strictly in terms of an heuristic analysis, and not necessarily in terms of blockchain analysis, correct? That is to say, if I merged and split my own outputs exactly as I have observed ChipMixer doing and then sent you some of those chips, you would assume they came from ChipMixer.
One update today.
Bisq exchange is now officially supporting Bech32 addresses so I am removing them from my lazy list.
Others will follow sooner or later
Bisq exchange is now officially supporting Bech32 addresses so I am removing them from my lazy list.
Others will follow sooner or later
Quote
SegWit addresses to fund and withdraw from your Bisq wallet
NOTE: Although it's now finally possible to transfer out of Bisq to Bech32 wallets, do not expect any fee savings just yet, because all Bisq trading transactions still happen against P2PKH addresses. This change will be shipped in one of the next releases.
Source information: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/releases/tag/v1.4.2 NOTE: Although it's now finally possible to transfer out of Bisq to Bech32 wallets, do not expect any fee savings just yet, because all Bisq trading transactions still happen against P2PKH addresses. This change will be shipped in one of the next releases.
As for ChipMixer, I believe they have very good reasons not to implement Bech32 yet:
I'm not sure I follow that logic. The anonymity from using ChipMixer does not rely on an attacker not being able to tell an output came from ChipMixer. Indeed, it is trivial to identity a ChipMixer output, given their characteristic funding transactions with 50 outputs of 0.016 BTC, or similar. It is therefore irrelevant if an output is legacy or Bech32 - it can easily be identified as a ChipMixer output either way. Rather, the anonymity comes from being unable to link these outputs to any inputs due to the time travel funding structure and set chip size.I for one would personally like ChipMixer to upgrade to native Segwit outputs at least, even if they keep legacy deposit addresses to maintain compatibility with other services.
Please correct me if I'm missing something though.
Trezor also supports receiving/sending from bech32 addresses with their new app and web wallet Trezor Suite:
https://suite.trezor.io/
https://suite.trezor.io/
I'm surprised to see Blockstream Green and Casa on the list. Fortunately, they will both likely be deploying Bech32 address generation in the not-so-distant future. At least, that's my interpretation of this and this.
As for ChipMixer, I believe they have very good reasons not to implement Bech32 yet:
As it turns out, Bech32 only represents 3.5% of the network if measured by number of UTXOs, or 4.6% if measured by the number of BTC stored. From a privacy perspective, it seems reasonable for ChipMixer to continue holding off.
As for ChipMixer, I believe they have very good reasons not to implement Bech32 yet:
I've always assumed it was due to the slow network adoption of Segwit. Until a few months ago, Segwit transactions comprised significantly less than 50% of transactions on the network. Moving all of Chipmixer's activity to Segwit would have therefore compromised its anonymity set. Best to use the most common form of Bitcoin address, right?
Now that Segwit adoption is hovering in the 50-60% range, the transition is more justifiable. (To be fair, I'm not sure about the proportion of bech32 vs. wrapped P2SH usage, though.)
Now that Segwit adoption is hovering in the 50-60% range, the transition is more justifiable. (To be fair, I'm not sure about the proportion of bech32 vs. wrapped P2SH usage, though.)
As it turns out, Bech32 only represents 3.5% of the network if measured by number of UTXOs, or 4.6% if measured by the number of BTC stored. From a privacy perspective, it seems reasonable for ChipMixer to continue holding off.
Hello dkbit98, someone tried to send me some coin from the exchange "Uphold" https://uphold.com/en-us/ I didn't know about. The site refused and said my Bech32 address was invalid. After some research, it turns out Uphold only supports P2PKH and P2SH addresses, so you can add it to your table with two red "no".
Than you for providing feedback about Uphold and it is now added to unsupported list.
I also added Betfury casino because I received report that is not supporting Bech32 address format.
You can post more submissions with proof.
I do not know about trust wallet.
Trust wallet supports bech32 for both sending and receiving bitcoin, i specifically think its for the iOS wallet users. The article below was published on 18th June 2020, so definitely Android users should be able to use Bech32 by now.Quote
All Trust Wallet users on iOS will now have access to ... you to send and receive Bitcoin through Bech32 (bc1) addresses... Android users should receive this functionality in the coming 2-3 weeks.
https://community.trustwallet.com/t/all-trust-wallet-users-on-ios-will-now-have-access-to-bitcoin-btc-in-their-multi-coin-crypto-wallet/34960I think OP should add trust wallet in the list above.
Hello dkbit98, someone tried to send me some coin from the exchange "Uphold" https://uphold.com/en-us/ I didn't know about. The site refused and said my Bech32 address was invalid. After some research, it turns out Uphold only supports P2PKH and P2SH addresses, so you can add it to your table with two red "no".
i'm curious if there is any data to support this, i thought it plateaued a while ago.
Sure there is, and if you look you will see I posted Bech32 statistics link in first post.there is an interesting jump in the chart if we look at the past year statistics in February where it goes from 410kBTC to 590kBTC, it is as if some whale(s) decided to move a lot of coins to bech32 addresses in one day (2020-02-03).
Jump to: