Topic: Segwit Addresses explorer? (Read 1694 times)

I see so that's the reason for breaking client code in old wallets was because they need bech32 in the transaction

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki

Well forget about it being slow because Mining and PoW in Bitcoin is all about wasting CPU power (They love it)
I can run with mixed case and error correction forced the change

Maybe the miners should give us free fees when converting a wallet, you know like all 20,000 of the parasites
could just about manage the conversion since the development team cocked it up in the first place and they
are only processing seven transactions per second

We keep seeing problem-reaction-solution with Bitcoin and the odd thing is that it hits our pockets
each time but yes i can agree it needed a fix 

There is support for both native and p2sh segwit addresses on blockonomics

Please free to check it out

https://blog.blockonomics.co/a-segwit-blockexplorer-47cd516dd8c5

Only the second one (Segwit) is really a Segwit wallet, which is using the bech32 format, thus not recommended right now since most services don't support this format (address starting with bc1).

The first one (Standard) is a normal address.

got electrum wallet installed last night, There was two options Segwit Address or standard, what is the difference ?

This is rather a question to S2X proponents.

My understanding is that there is no BIP. Core developers were not consulted and no discussion was made.

S2X does not change anything except for increased block size so there are no upgrades and no "upcoming addresses". It's a hard fork so there is nothing casual about it.

Under which BIP proposal does this SegWit2x scheme comes?
Can you exactly explain what this S2x BIP contains so special?
Will the upcoming addresses be different and acceptable?
Why are all these "proposed upgrades" needed? Or are they even needed?
Is this an upgrade itself or a "casual" split?

Sorry for the typo and thanks for the explanation.  I was reading the bitcoin-dev mailing list and there were some ideas to include "address expiration date" to BIP173 but I guess it didn't gain traction.

It's BIP 173, not 171.

That is not how BIP drafts work. Once a BIP is in the BIP repo, it is practically final. The spec can't be changed too much by that point. Draft just means that it is not widely deployed on the network yet, not that it is still being drafted and can change at any point.

Bech32 is finalized, just not widely deployed so it's BIP status is not final. Also, there are still several things that are listed as draft even though they are widely deployed to the network and won't be changing, e.g. BIP 152 (compact blocks).

BIP171/Bech32 is a draft (but with a very high probability of being final) so it is possible that the addresses format may change. The keys will work but the associated address may no longer be the same if the draft is changed. So I would not share such an address with anybody, yet (to minimize the risk that the address will no longer be working in the future) but  P2WPKH and  P2WSH are defined in BIP141 (segwit soft fork) and rolling it back would require reversing the whole segwit fork. Either with an essentially 51% attack to mine starting from before the fork and submitting a longer work chain or a hard fork that would create an altcoin that invalidates segwit. Doing it will allow anybody to steal all the pure segwit coins and all the P2SH-P2WPKH ones that revealed their scripts (were spent and refilled). The mining action requires a 51% attack on steroids (the total work since the fork is now enormous), the hard fork will be an altcoin that nobody cares about.

Bugs and glitches are unpredictable but any serious ones will likely be fixed and rolled back, like https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident or https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448.

The strategy for profit-maximizing paranoids is to keep the cold storage in pre-segwit coins (there is no benefit in moving coins that are only stored and there is a minuscule chance of some problems that will affect only segwit coins; though it will be either fixed  or will crash Bitcoin ecosystem so hard that there will be no much difference) but move the hot wallets to segwit addresses.

Thanks for the detailed clarification.
I have one more query, can P2WPKH and P2WSH addresses send/receive Bitcoins through Bech32 (latest addresses) without any difficulties or we may see some glitches in the future (a possibility) if miners decide to stop confirming old addresses' transactions completely?

No, BIP173 (though it is still draft) specifies Bech32 only to P2WPKH and P2WSH. It may be extended to include older formats but I think it won't because it will only confuse people.


Old P2PKH and P2SH addresses are going to work. It is the only way to ensure that old coins are spendablle so I guess it will be supported as long as Bitcoin exists.


Segwit protocol is a broad and complicated thing. All the blocks mined are already under segwit protocol. In theory, there can be a non-segwit block mined with only non-segwit transactions but I think all the miners upgraded software so it does not happen.

BIP141 defines 4 segwit payment methods:

• P2WPKH
• P2WPKH nested in P2SH (P2SH-P2WPKH)
• P2WSH
• P2WSH nested in P2SH (P2SH-P2WSH)

P2WPKH and P2WSH are native segwit. Both spending and receiving requires segwit-aware wallets. The addresses are bech32 encoded.  For P2SH-P2WPKH and P2SH-P2WSH only spending requires segwit-aware wallets (but relaying and block validation can happen also on non-segwit aware node). Anybody (with BIP9 P2SH-aware wallet) can send to these addresses because they look (and the output behaves) the same as non-segwit P2SH. They are provided to ease the transition to segwit. The nesting in P2SH induces an overhead so native segwit transactions are smaller. Only at input it is revealed if the address is P2SH only or P2SH with witness. Both look the same (starting with 3)

Currently, very few of the native segwit transactions are happening. But it is slowly growing. If you don't care about receiving (say, a wallet for sending with occasional top-up, many exchanges have such wallets), you can use it right away and save on fees. P2SH-P2WPKH is more universal but the transactions have higher size (and fees), though still lower than non-segwit P2PKH or P2SH.

What about the old P2PKH addresses? I mean will they be included in the Bech32 (native segwit) format?
Is there any difference in using the old addresses? Shall I stop using the P2PKH and/or P2PSH addresses?
The addresses that blockchain.info provides nowadays, do they all come under the SegWit Protocol?

They appear if you just for a tx with this kind of address and enable the advanced view. But you can't search or view the page of addresses with Bech32 format which is current used by Electrum 3.0;

I did some research and found that at least BTC.com and Smartbit.com.au can be used to look for addresses with the native Segwit format.

Segwit addresses do appear in blockchain.info, but they don't have their own pages, so you can't easily use it to get a list of transactions involving a segwit address. Maybe that's a planned feature, or they're waiting to see if anyone actually uses them.

Do you know a site where i can see and check the status and transaction history of segwit addresses starting from bc1 address (Bech32)
I just try to check segwit address  in blocktrail and blockchain explorer but the result is nothing in blockchain but in blockctrail result "Oh Snap!"
Looks like its not supported in some block explorer? Or you know guys a bitcoin explorer that support segwit addresses?