Author

Topic: Segwit Adoption. I looked at some data, and we are not there yet. (Read 1211 times)

legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).
I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

That goes beyond any sane and logical risk management approach. Maybe I'm a black sheep here but I've never used them and knowing what I know now I'm more than happy to have never entrusted them with my precious satoshis.
Quote
I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.
On this, if they're to become compliant in several jurisdictions that needs to change as well.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 5814
not your keys, not your coins!
On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).
I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.
Damnnn that's a biig potential point of failure man. Quite happy that I don't didn't ever keep funds on exchanges (tbh don't use those anymore nowadays).... Their opsec must be super tight with so much power in 1 private key.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).
I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.
legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.
The additional fees for their own massive wallet are negligible compared to the fees on consolidating deposits. Address 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s has more than a million transactions, and almost 15 million Bitcoin went through it. Binance still pays 100 sat/vbyte for withdrawals, even though they could get away with 90 to 99% less. They're simply too rich and charge users too much for withdrawals to care about fees. And they want to keep withdrawal fees high to promote their own centralized shitcoin: they want users to withdraw made-up tokens instead of real Bitcoins. Low fees and smaller transaction sizes don't align with their (financial) interests.
This was the simplest answer, in fact.
On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).
As you said, the simple answer is that they don't care and by doing that they promote their useless binance coin and blockchain.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.
The additional fees for their own massive wallet are negligible compared to the fees on consolidating deposits. Address 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s has more than a million transactions, and almost 15 million Bitcoin went through it. Binance still pays 100 sat/vbyte for withdrawals, even though they could get away with 90 to 99% less. They're simply too rich and charge users too much for withdrawals to care about fees. And they want to keep withdrawal fees high to promote their own centralized shitcoin: they want users to withdraw made-up tokens instead of real Bitcoins. Low fees and smaller transaction sizes don't align with their (financial) interests.
legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.
To me this seems to be the real motivation.
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 4158
What exchange involves in that growth?

Is it Binance? Segwit adoption support was announced in December 2020
Support does not enough and it takes time for people to be aware of Segwit advantages and adapt to Segwit transactions. So I feel reasonable (5 months from Dec 2020 to May 2021) to see this adaptation and signifcant growth)
Probably not. An overwhelming majority of Binance transactions are still legacy. Their hot wallet is here: 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s. You can see that a huge bulk of consolidations all originate from v1 Bitcoin addresses. Default, CMIIW is still legacy addresses and you can toggle between those and which most people probably won't because it doesn't benefit them. I'll probably assume that Binance has nothing to do with this but rather because of the drop in TX volume recently, then you're seeing lesser of the groups of people who are not concerned about using Segwit.

legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
  • More impressively, this growth is opposite with the decreases from 1- and 3-address since January 2021, especially since May 2021. It means, Bech32-address actually takes over 1- and 3-address types. Its growth does not only come from the bigger adoption of Bitcoin
PlanB discovered the same growth of Segwit adoption.

Quote
bitcoin fees (blue line) are low since this summer. This is not because of low transactions (low demand for blockspace), but because a large exchange (I will not say who) finally implemented segwit transactions. Segwit adoption (yellow line) is now ~80%. Expect fees to stay low.
The x-axis label does not show specific months but from the chart of PlanB, I guess the growth occurs around May or June 2021. That matches my findings above.

What exchange involves in that growth?
  • Is it Binance? Segwit adoption support was announced in December 2020
  • Support does not enough and it takes time for people to be aware of Segwit advantages and adapt to Segwit transactions. So I feel reasonable (5 months from Dec 2020 to May 2021) to see this adaptation and signifcant growth)
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
note that if you're simply counting the 3- addresses (without waiting for them to be spent from), there is no way of knowing whether they're segwit addresses or some other type of script.

with 3- addresses, the spend script is concealed until spending time, from which point the BTC is no longer stored at that address anyway.
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
It didn't help: can you make the line 1 pixel in width?
I am not familiar with it. I looks a little better if I narrow down the window to 2018 - 2021
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Ok, there you go
It didn't help: can you make the line 1 pixel in width?
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
The orange ("1-address") bars aren't visible for the last couple of months. Can you improve this, for instance by using a line instead of bars in the graph?
Ok, there you go


Quote
The good news is: Segwit is now really taking over native addresses!
Segwit is on its way to really take over native 2 other types. It's just the beginning.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Time series
The orange ("1-address") bars aren't visible for the last couple of months. Can you improve this, for instance by using a line instead of bars in the graph?

The good news is: Segwit is now really taking over native addresses!
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
Update: My "outputs" data is complete again (133 GB), and I'm now counting daily transactions.
Results when it's ready: loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data2.txt.
Thank you LoyceV for your time to update the dataset.  Smiley


It's my update, after one year.

  • Data source: https://loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data2.txt
  • The Bech32-address count grows very well since January 2021. You can see this growth on both time-series charts or box plots.
  • Box plots: the median --vertical line inside box -- in December 2020 is less than 150,000 but since January 2021, it has never been below 150,000, very good growth.
  • The Bech32-address value has similar growth. Its median (10^12) grows from about 22 in December 2020 to almost above 30 in 8 months of 2021.
  • More impressively, this growth is opposite with the decreases from 1- and 3-address since January 2021, especially since May 2021. It means, Bech32-address actually takes over 1- and 3-address types. Its growth does not only come from the bigger adoption of Bitcoin
  • For 2018 - 2019 analytics, check them there

Time series

Address count


Address value (10^12)
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Would you mind sharing how did you process that original dataset in order to retrieve another one for Segwit adoption, please.
I had to search for what exactly I did. The good news is I found back the script I used.
The bad news: I used "outputs" from Bitcoin block data (550 GB): inputs, outputs and transactions, but my VPS provider disappeared months ago, so it's not up to date and not easily available either. I have an (outdated) backup on a computer that's currently powered off.

Update: My "outputs" data is complete again (133 GB), and I'm now counting daily transactions.
Results when it's ready: loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data2.txt.
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
I made a summary per day already. I can create one per block, but it takes some time so I'll only do it if someone's going to use it.
Hi LoyceV,

I download the dataset from there https://loyce.club/blockdata/blockdata.txt.gz. There is no variable for address types in the dataset.

Would you mind sharing how did you process that original dataset in order to retrieve another one for Segwit adoption, please.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
I have to be honest with you, many of my friends have bitcoins gifted to them on Paper wallets (Legacy addresses) that would most probably never be shifted to SegWit addresses. These people do not see the need to do that and those coins are stored for long-term (Cold Storage) and not daily use, so they see no benefit in doing this now.


Your Friends coins are not considered in the last statistics,  as we are considering only recent transactions.
I agree with you and your friends:they shouldn't move their coins if they do not need.
legendary
Activity: 3388
Merit: 1943
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I have to be honest with you, many of my friends have bitcoins gifted to them on Paper wallets (Legacy addresses) that would most probably never be shifted to SegWit addresses. These people do not see the need to do that and those coins are stored for long-term (Cold Storage) and not daily use, so they see no benefit in doing this now.

A lot of these people are not Bitcoin enthusiasts like myself, so for them to do this ...is a huge risk. I offered to help with this, but they say there is no immediate need to do this. I agree with them from their perspective... Why mess with something that is working and that are secure.

It would be different if they planned to use those coins frequently ... because tx's would be confirmed much quicker and also much cheaper.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 10424
Electrum wallet uses a different standard and you can not apply the guide.
it is not a different standard, it is the same thing that has been used forever with just changing the first byte (recovery byte) to a different value. when verifying signatures you don't even have to pay attention to that byte if you wish to (it is just a helper).
the "standard" is also outlined in BIP-137 which is a very old one too.
hero member
Activity: 1722
Merit: 801
For example the other day I made a signed message from a segwit address in Electrum to give to someone, but none of the online message tools would verify the signature, they all said it was invalid because it turns out they only support legacy addresses.
You can check this topic and try to verify your message (Segwit address and not in Electrum walelt) with Brainwallet. With few steps to convert address and you can verify it with Brainwallet.

How to verify SegWit signature with Brainwallet ?

Electrum wallet uses a different standard and you can not apply the guide. Message that is signed by Segwit address in Electrum wallet can only be verified by Electrum wallet. About possibility to Sign messages in Segwit address in future
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
There is one big reason why people still use legacy addresses, because legacy signatures are standardized across all clients and implementations, while segwit signed messages aren’t.

I don't think that's exactly a "big" reason, most users don't need to prove ownership of funds at any address (other than by sending a transaction from the address, of course). And many probably aren't aware that it's possible (or even what it means)

There is a developing standard (BIP322), but it may not be finalized for a few weeks/months yet. It was recently changed (simplified, in fact), so the new proposal will be reviewed amongst Bitcoin developers before it's ready to be implemented into wallet/client software.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
There is no reason to use legacy. I have been using bech32 nearly since it got added into Electrum. The incentive is there, you pay a tiny little bit less in transaction fees. Could this be some exchange that keep being the bulk users still with outdated systems in place? Maybe the pools as well?

There is one big reason why people still use legacy addresses, because legacy signatures are standardized across all clients and implementations, while segwit signed messages aren’t. P2WSH and P2WPKH signatures don’t have an standard that’s implemented by everyone yet, so each client uses its own incompatible format of segwit signatures. This results in each client being unable to verify segwit signatures made by other clients and they are poorly written to print that the signed message is invalid, even though it’s perfectly valid.

For example the other day I made a signed message from a segwit address in Electrum to give to someone, but none of the online message tools would verify the signature, they all said it was invalid because it turns out they only support legacy addresses.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
Obviously the more software wallets, like Electrum, and the more exchanges integrate and support Bech32 as the default, the more of its usage trajectory goes up.

Don't listen to the FUD.
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
About Bech32-address, it has upwards trend in count and value over last 3 years (plots show that trend -- see in median and interquartile range, the vertical line and box, respectively). Pay your attention on axis-scales that are different over 3 years.

In 2018


In 2019


In 2020 (10 months)
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
A small data point "out of the field":

Quote
The BTM department of BitcoinVN announced in a recent tweet that all their current Bitcoin ATMs have been upgraded to enable SegWit deposits and withdrawals from their machines.


Native SegWit addresses can be identified that they commonly begin with “bc1…” at the start of the alphanumeric string.

https://news.bitcoinvn.io/bitcoin-atm-saigon-upgraded-segwit/?lang=en

We have upgraded all of our current fleet to utilize native Bech32 addresses  Smiley

Especially since Bitcoin ATM users often just transfer smaller amounts of funds the savings in tx fees should be quite noticeable as we enter the next bull market (in Dec 2017 the peak tx fee one unfortunate customer had to pay was over 100$  Undecided ).
I know you meant this terrible period that I was in too. The time-series plot is for median statistics (that already exclude min, max and outlier values), not for maximum so you can imagine how those spikes look like if I use Maximum statistics and plot them.

To avoid derailing the thread, I invite you to read Bitcoin transaction fees (feer per KB - in USD) with median, outliers, plots

Your statement can be verified by plots above. Segwit adopters are mostly use the address type for smaller transactions but as said it does not solely because of them, exchangers and merchants have their roles here as well.
member
Activity: 90
Merit: 17
Largest BTM network in Vietnam
A small data point "out of the field":

Quote
The BTM department of BitcoinVN announced in a recent tweet that all their current Bitcoin ATMs have been upgraded to enable SegWit deposits and withdrawals from their machines.


Native SegWit addresses can be identified that they commonly begin with “bc1…” at the start of the alphanumeric string.

https://news.bitcoinvn.io/bitcoin-atm-saigon-upgraded-segwit/?lang=en

We have upgraded all of our current fleet to utilize native Bech32 addresses  Smiley

Especially since Bitcoin ATM users often just transfer smaller amounts of funds the savings in tx fees should be quite noticeable as we enter the next bull market (in Dec 2017 the peak tx fee one unfortunate customer had to pay was over 100$  Undecided ).

legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
You can see differences among 3 years (for address count and address values over 3 types of addresses): 2018, 2019 and 2020 (not yet completed)
  • In 2018
    • Address count: 1-address decreased over months, and the highest peak was in January 2018 and gradually fell after that. In contrast, the 3-address rose over months and reached its peak in November.
    • Address value: almost same trends. 1-address was high in first half of 2018, then fell significantly in the second half. 3-address increased over months but with less significance compares to address-count.
  • In 2019
    • Address count: Both 1- and 3-address increased the first half (with peaks were around May) and decreased in the second half. Bech32-address increased stably over months.
    • Address value: In this year, the 3-address type is dominant in address value with 2 highest peaks in January and June. It is very different than rest 2 years (2018 and 2020)

In 2018

In 2019
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
The increases of values are confirmed by box plots. In the same period, whilst the increases in BTC add counts (reached peak in May) are not significantly over 3 types of address, the rises in address values are very significantly and noticeable. The peak of address values (1-address type, specifically) in 2020 so far was hit in September. It began the rise since August and with the amazing breakout of BTC I think the new peak can be hit in October. Let's wait time to confirm it.

Bech32 addresses are less affected by bitcoin rises (both in counts and values). People still have favorite in Legacy addresses to store their bitcoin and it can be explained by the fact that most of people store their bitcoin on exchangers, not on their own non-custodial wallets (my assumption only).


Two plots are other confirmations for your pie charts in OP.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
We only need data since 02/26/2018 (Bitcoin Core segwit release date).
I only notice this now: SegWit was implemented on August 23, 2017. Why use Feb 26 (a couple months later)?

This was a mistake in my first post, corrected later on:

I stripped block data before block 481824 (segwit activation)

By 2017-08-24 (the day block 481824 was mined ) there were:

But from my sources it is  2017-08-24 01:05:01

Anyway, that doesn't make much of difference...




And there was still  a block with 2992 legacy transactions (and zero segwit) in 2020!
I made a summary per day already. I can create one per block, but it takes some time so I'll only do it if someone's going to use it.

No need for one per block, as I used your other post to get data from each block.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
We only need data since 02/26/2018 (Bitcoin Core segwit release date).
I only notice this now: SegWit was implemented on August 23, 2017. Why use Feb 26 (a couple months later)?

It looks like there was a dusting spam attack somewhere in 2015, with many output addresses.

And there was still  a block with 2992 legacy transactions (and zero segwit) in 2020!
I made a summary per day already. I can create one per block, but it takes some time so I'll only do it if someone's going to use it.
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 10424
And there was still  a block with 2992 legacy transactions (and zero segwit) in 2020! I searched to find out who that miner was (block 616561) with no success.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/616561
Miner: Unkown (in blockchair and blockchain.com databases)
interesting find.
that block's coinbase's signature script is this:
Code:
03716809049f203f5efabe6d6d790aeab57d0c2c6db22acdf312204864aa6e0804d236bcfbf3193f216ac0aef8040000000000000008180052c2d7050000142f70726f68617368696e672e636f6d9b1d02002f
when encoded using UTF8 it contains the name "prohashing.com" which is a multi-coin mining pool.

block explorers usually mark these as "unknown" when the mining pool is small or when they don't have the name string in their hardcoded database.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
do you know the number of transactions in blocks with 100% legacy/SegWit transactions?

Yes, I have all of them:


Quote
it is possible that these blocks contain between 1 transaction (coinbase) and a handful of them which makes it easy to have 100% of one type only.

You are right, most of them are coinbase tx, but not all.

I filtered all blocks with less than 2 transactions here in these tables:


As we can see, 20% of all 0% segwit have more than 1 transaction (coinbase). Most of them in the begin, when adoption was still struggling...
But only 2% of 100% segwit blocks have more than 1 transaction.

And there was still  a block with 2992 legacy transactions (and zero segwit) in 2020! I searched to find out who that miner was (block 616561) with no success.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/616561
Miner: Unkown (in blockchair and blockchain.com databases)
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 10424
There are also 100% legacy blocks. Are there miners who still do not want to add segwit transactions in their blocks? That's a possibility.
do you know the number of transactions in blocks with 100% legacy/SegWit transactions?
it is possible that these blocks contain between 1 transaction (coinbase) and a handful of them which makes it easy to have 100% of one type only.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
How many addresses out there are cold storage / physical things that have funds sitting on them in legacy addresses?
They will probably be there for a long time.
How many are paper wallets?
There are a few other reasons I can think of that legacy is still around and being used.

-Dave
Some people followed a specific procedure to generate, secure and backup keys, or xpriv keys, and are confident the keys are secure and safe against loss. They may be nervous about generating new private keys for segwit addresses. I started using SW years ago, but this was my biggest hurdle to switch over.
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
Which platform do you use? You are making nice graphics. It is not easy to do that in excel, unless you have a super computer (excel is so slow). powerbi?
You can use Stata, SPSS, R or Python. If you have good experience with Python, there are packages for you to use (on Python and on R as well). People have switched to use R or Python because they are free and of course much stronger and fastly updated with community contributions.

Excel is not good to play with plots and analyses.


I had problems with this chart as well. Those spikes are probably a data problem as I have them in my charts as well.
You can try with different recasting options (area, line, connected, scatter) and choose an option that gives you best plots.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
Try a scatter graph instead of lines Smiley
Better result...
The data is not representative when we look at each block, as I said there are far too many 100% segwit blocks.


There are also 100% legacy blocks. Are there miners who still do not want to add segwit transactions in their blocks? That's a possibility. Take a look at the bottom of the chart.



bitmover,

I don't get experience with Python and don't know how to use it. If you need help with time-series plots, I can help you with weekly updates.
Which platform do you use? You are making nice graphics. It is not easy to do that in excel, unless you have a super computer (excel is so slow). powerbi?




This chart is beautiful.
but there is something wrong with the Legacy count in 2020. Legacy add count is still bigger than the bech32 and p2sh.
I made the same chart. Take a look:

Sorry, I understood what you did now: You didn't stack, it is not an area chart but a line chart.
I made a stacked version of yours now. My first chart had problems as well:



I had problems with this chart as well. Those spikes are probably a data problem as I have them in my charts as well. I decided to make a 100% stacked bar, and the results were nicer:


legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
bitmover,

I don't get experience with Python and don't know how to use it. If you need help with time-series plots, I can help you with weekly updates.

Of course, I am supper happy if we can work together in the future.

LoyceV,

There are 4 time-series plots. I might polish them tomorrow with a narrower period and might stratified them over years.

Hope it helps!  Cheesy

legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1292
There is trouble abrewing
for me segwit is just the gateway address for LN. i still use legacy
yep i know they made legacy 4x more expensive. but thats just corporate politics at play to make people lean into wanting to use other networks. and i refuse to play their game because of it
heck segwit is not even cheaper then the 2015 promise of cheaper transactions.. and yep i stand by my point that its not segwit is cheaper. but devs made legacy more expensive.

just because the new thing is cheaper doesn't mean the old thing becomes more expensive. the legacy transactions have the same size as they always did and their fee is just as it has always been. the only thing that changed is that we are now computing fee based on virtual size and SegWit transactions have a smaller virtual size while legacy transactions have the same virtual size as before.

Quote
segwit complex code does not give it any intrinsic feature to explain the cost difference of legacy vs segwit
it is not complex at all, at least not any more complex than any other part of bitcoin. when you don't understand the bitcoin technology of course it is going to look complex to you.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Very ugly chart.
Try a scatter graph instead of lines Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
the best metric in my opinion is the number of SegWit inputs per block. for example if a block has 2000 transactions and that is 2500 inputs and out of those 1500 are SegWit inputs then you can say the adoption is 60%.

not really. many blocks are not filled with user transactions.. but mixer and exchange cold wallet fills and empties

also coins per address is not a fair measure because a exchange with 10,000 coins per single p2sh multisig. vs 10,000 people with 1btc on legacy. does not show the reality of usage.

for me segwit is just the gateway address for LN. i still use legacy
yep i know they made legacy 4x more expensive. but thats just corporate politics at play to make people lean into wanting to use other networks. and i refuse to play their game because of it
heck segwit is not even cheaper then the 2015 promise of cheaper transactions.. and yep i stand by my point that its not segwit is cheaper. but devs made legacy more expensive.


Besides being the least problematic onchain capacity increase, wasn't Segwit mainly a transaction malleability-problem fix, and brought other benefits for the network?




legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
Quote
We only need data since 02/26/2018 (Bitcoin Core segwit release date).
I'm kinda interested to see how many 3-addresses are in use before SegWit.




By 2017-08-24 (the day block 481824 was mined ) there were:

Legacy Add Count        426910
P2SH-Multisig Add Count           86988
Bech32 Add Count            17
Legacy Total Balance   1292594.113662 BTC
P2SH-Multisig Total Balance      356041.326315 BTC
Bech32 Total Balance        51.999394 BTC

as there are 17 Bech32 addresses, there might some P2SH-Segwit as well. So I looked one day earlier as well.
2017-08-23
Legacy Add Count        705680
P2SH Add Count          134520
Bech32 Add Count             0.000000
Legacy Total Balance   1977622.672343 BTC
P2SH Total Balance      386197.053188 BTC
Bech32 Total Balance         0.000000 BTC


It is curious to see that the total number of P2SH decreased the day after segwit was activated
47.532 address (~35% reduction) and 30K BTC (~8% reduction).

Could this be something related to BCH fud?
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet

Thanks. I will work on it soon.

let me show what I did today.

I discovered that you have  transaction_count.txt and witness_count.txt in your Bitcoin block data available in CSV format

Then, I just made a quick search in blockchair APi documentation and found that it is very easy to calculate the segwit adoption.
witness_count = Number of transactions in the block containing witness information

You just need to divide witness_count by transaction count to get the percentage.

The problem is that some miners, for some reason, only get SegWit transactions in a block (sometimes just one). This makes the results very weird as we will see a lot of 100% adoption blocks (which is not false, but it is not representative).

I stripped block data before block 481824 (segwit activation)


Very ugly chart.

Then i decided to group transactions by month and see what was the adoption per month (instead of per block). The results were much nicer:



Curious fact: There is a downtrend in segwit adoption at 2020-3, which is the peak of the pandemic crisis. I guess people were moving old legacy coins to cash out and this affected the total "adoption"
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Here you go:
https://loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data.txt (not a large file).
Code:
date,1 addy count,3 addy count,Bech32 addy count,1 addy value,3 addy value,Bech32 addy value
2009-01-03,1,0,0,5000000000,,
2009-01-09,14,0,0,70000000000,,
2009-01-10,61,0,0,305000000000,,
2009-01-11,93,0,0,465000000000,,
2009-01-12,106,0,0,487900000000,,
2009-01-13,123,0,0,615000000000,,
2009-01-14,130,0,0,651100000000,,
2009-01-15,140,0,0,680000000000,,
2009-01-16,110,0,0,560000000000,,
2009-01-17,109,0,0,545000000000,,
2009-01-18,108,0,0,550000000000,,
2009-01-19,117,0,0,652500000000,,
2009-01-20,115,0,0,610000000000,,
2009-01-21,103,0,0,520000000000,,
2009-01-22,92,0,0,505000000000,,
2009-01-23,86,0,0,465000000000,,
2009-01-24,202,0,0,1055000000000,,
2009-01-25,192,0,0,960000000000,,
2009-01-26,97,0,0,580000000000,,
2009-01-27,98,0,0,500000000000,,
2009-01-28,112,0,0,560000000000,,
2009-01-29,122,0,0,665000000000,,
2009-01-30,117,0,0,585000000000,,
2009-01-31,139,0,0,790000000000,,
2009-02-01,114,0,0,575000000000,,
2009-02-02,129,0,0,645000000000,,
2009-02-03,169,0,0,768652000000,,
2009-02-04,119,0,0,595000000000,,
2009-02-05,126,0,0,630000000000,,
2009-02-06,122,0,0,610000000000,,
2009-02-07,134,0,0,764800000000,,
2009-02-08,133,0,0,760000000000,,
2009-02-09,135,0,0,890000000000,,
2009-02-10,120,0,0,600000000000,,
2009-02-11,135,0,0,720004000000,,
2009-02-12,119,0,0,595000000000,,
2009-02-13,124,0,0,620000000000,,
2009-02-14,136,0,0,680000000000,,
2009-02-15,131,0,0,730000000000,,
2009-02-16,123,0,0,760000000000,,
2009-02-17,117,0,0,585000000000,,
2009-02-18,118,0,0,590000000000,,
2009-02-19,125,0,0,700000000000,,
2009-02-20,122,0,0,610000000000,,
2009-02-21,114,0,0,570000000000,,
2009-02-22,125,0,0,710000000000,,
2009-02-23,108,0,0,540000000000,,
2009-02-24,106,0,0,530000000000,,
2009-02-25,105,0,0,525000000000,,
2009-02-26,107,0,0,535000000000,,
........
........
........
2020-08-19,455998,418104,90410,136252229216711,38207856950231,15624696315877
2020-08-20,431996,411757,88449,127453217228637,36848455436766,21099695883662
2020-08-21,412221,399109,85242,99638225201061,35501994075309,15331970398334
2020-08-22,393422,388158,79152,100770674397428,24009846308666,11448220279848
2020-08-23,332641,329314,97388,108686689271991,18966996489817,9915334638421
2020-08-24,402641,400183,94616,141110955027421,29514987238757,17162191547198
2020-08-25,412172,402009,86438,107263910642399,32825094002986,22873858572973
2020-08-26,440030,401670,88599,143623748098467,29820813517272,22859099382760
2020-08-27,447042,417158,87891,146995819475449,33395946820914,24963296835877
2020-08-28,448985,423350,93206,159916151556009,33867915491339,23437629524504
2020-08-29,366372,357391,91009,132619714706900,27372611855909,15723818763411
2020-08-30,325873,328772,85654,136552986252641,23511838209173,15911543308935
2020-08-31,386097,384312,90817,203877828495697,38504044452467,28029481732957
2020-09-01,492706,449522,99004,209811748165541,34996845884823,21393838306849
2020-09-02,440824,405601,87240,168865376112661,39423086664485,23795230739108
2020-09-03,422576,390596,82675,193296507251844,48199231230766,33428509966252
2020-09-04,408133,400245,88069,191089640423051,46863139246091,29442770150320
2020-09-05,430865,412027,87480,186516086992197,40759687665788,16787874526182
2020-09-06,332374,314968,85618,196316947553197,19714405301053,13553404911396
2020-09-07,400944,389258,102164,244224191526102,33667144918290,21734247464610
2020-09-08,420383,409097,100932,217298084984760,33082964901277,21141231220076
2020-09-09,418029,381427,93141,270135854861231,30556325713789,18567284072225
2020-09-10,461251,424576,96469,300395770810079,31388572531663,18275356569830
2020-09-11,422281,406332,86883,264023785887788,34335636408123,15458624579473
2020-09-12,371966,341539,101941,224685762724077,22011541491289,13507511387783
2020-09-13,311754,326494,90613,231247951237279,18379452515568,13139930708959
2020-09-14,442100,423395,110181,222791990302199,36774187011682,17800868547361
2020-09-15,439727,414927,94253,240335258985626,34624492186780,16624642317853
2020-09-16,467194,426782,98787,259101781845015,30461023972239,16288246362157
2020-09-17,452775,421765,107356,368884346864198,30106102762854,16055285690140
2020-09-18,423498,388849,97778,330303462627097,31771465450871,17216119427137
2020-09-19,378445,358006,89279,252241323062039,22521877167060,12104279510058
2020-09-20,311033,304381,93879,205697818063972,20447180370893,10391061704735
2020-09-21,385770,365454,94229,299078274803435,29478686288438,18519925666028
2020-09-22,427351,394309,83038,232390648025495,30988326087418,16854306998331
2020-09-23,462538,419047,91267,216135523079559,30705234610575,19836155738220
2020-09-24,423869,387362,87268,177757649122261,48901373076417,19368262370400
2020-09-25,467986,425300,96876,233256358161864,34736176445301,16666682298963
2020-09-26,362458,328718,80320,207125291814868,19878886442851,12318303182361
2020-09-27,319715,302807,88679,181261455107958,18890650791005,12339280217229
2020-09-28,379067,355136,89864,183982536273286,28060841265664,17930614261348
2020-09-29,463680,420909,96630,199153334182133,37652598533664,22538898944529
2020-09-30,463941,423992,92916,186907435829579,29488883184414,22428955318285
2020-10-01,408649,387183,89891,148667867186388,34329773260961,22478894128316
2020-10-02,430700,396608,88743,205582539171409,44434139116039,21686834420686
2020-10-03,405259,369568,86183,183960263488794,18663367656904,15176201005865
2020-10-04,332155,310898,97778,157136459200868,16294938563812,14640577293029
2020-10-05,377931,358868,92951,152604739674116,30914529091541,21342436494352
2020-10-06,424386,401365,94972,172777475136757,26433346060214,25528796101412
2020-10-07,497160,432267,101679,156837025837901,31467070848206,24058196902115
2020-10-08,424525,388665,99234,148279800469648,33195952719264,21323758178204
2020-10-09,446349,409324,101081,219304817528092,35456605310641,22127787414543
2020-10-10,394682,340468,93154,148556601637243,20634870121461,24250808119111
2020-10-11,315537,298082,93751,175778846331667,15871740231264,22141396117966
2020-10-12,398379,384215,95871,164618683866396,30962285663738,22221566024495
2020-10-13,434967,404588,104128,174396414428013,32761557039880,21443908625889
2020-10-14,425288,376365,93526,196135129778647,25406432732324,19028485442051
2020-10-15,470404,417658,100769,213815529141293,30580762465844,25534292426190
2020-10-16,442766,400530,98200,186800827562585,30549276986448,19822545189692
2020-10-17,351471,328273,88531,219815294120207,16664846804095,11510493743563
2020-10-18,301198,296557,72058,185307481115335,15017053699890,13349930096674
The column "value" is in satoshi. Both addy count and value are the total for each day.

It doesn't get automated updates. If anyone wants an update, send me a message.
hero member
Activity: 1643
Merit: 683
LoyceV on the road. Or couch.
Anyway, I cannot handle more than 30gb files due to my hardware limitations. Maybe 50gb, but I would need to delete it as fast as possible...
Lol, I said kB, not GB.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
Quote
We only need data since 02/26/2018 (Bitcoin Core segwit release date).
I'm kinda interested to see how many 3-addresses are in use before SegWit.

hum.  I got it. Then we could safely mark those addresses as P2SH-multisig, and all address past 2018 as *possible/probable* P2SH-SegWit.

Anyway, I cannot handle more than 30gb files due to my hardware limitations. Maybe 50gb, but I would need to delete it as fast as possible...

When you have the data, please extract data since february 2018 and I will try to work with it.


Honestly, weeks ago, I downloaded your original data and it is huge, exceed my computer memory so I gave up. With the lighter data set, I can play with it.

Quote
I'm kinda interested to see how many 3-addresses are in use before SegWit.
Sure, I can join the party and I am familiar when handling such stuffs.

Anyway, it was requested by bitmover first so I won't break his fun here. If bitmover needs help, please ask. Or if after he releases his work and I see I can make polishment I will join the party.  Tongue

Do you work with python? How do you work with data from the forum? We can try to work together.

Pandas can handle such files smoothly, the problem is the file size for me. I cannot store it.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
The reason behind bech32 holding less bitcoin is most of the services don't support bech32, as a result they don't hold their bitcoin in bech32 as well (if they would, they would support too I think).
It's sad. Segwit adoption would give us more space to block.

It absolutely doesn't matter, you can support bigger blocks if you use bech32. Or support small blocks if you use legacy addresses. And you can change your mind anytime you like, the legacy format will always be supported (as long as people still have BTC stored in legacy addresses at the least).
legendary
Activity: 4186
Merit: 4385
the best metric in my opinion is the number of SegWit inputs per block. for example if a block has 2000 transactions and that is 2500 inputs and out of those 1500 are SegWit inputs then you can say the adoption is 60%.

not really. many blocks are not filled with user transactions.. but mixer and exchange cold wallet fills and empties

also coins per address is not a fair measure because a exchange with 10,000 coins per single p2sh multisig. vs 10,000 people with 1btc on legacy. does not show the reality of usage.

for me segwit is just the gateway address for LN. i still use legacy
yep i know they made legacy 4x more expensive. but thats just corporate politics at play to make people lean into wanting to use other networks. and i refuse to play their game because of it
heck segwit is not even cheaper then the 2015 promise of cheaper transactions.. and yep i stand by my point that its not segwit is cheaper. but devs made legacy more expensive.

heck until i see sipa stop asking for donations in legacy. then i know that he finally trusts his own code.. but so far. he is still asking for donations in legacy so something is up. and its kinda weird he has not converted. and yep its been 2+ years, so not many excuses can explain his delay in using segwit himself.

segwit complex code does not give it any intrinsic feature to explain the cost difference of legacy vs segwit
its just muddy math to miscount some bytes and pretend those bites have no value. and also multiply cost of other bytes
this stuff can be removed without breaking bitcoin and make transaction fee's more honest

infact removing the muck. will allow more transactions into a block. and make all transactions cheaper without ripping up the 4mb area now deemed allowed

so segwit is not a feature benefit. but just a cludge of code and math to make legacy(true) bitcoin seem slow and expensive just to invite people over to other networks

and that is why although i test, play around, bug test the muck...
.. when using bitcoin for actual uses i use legacy. and proud of it
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Could you dump data for UTXO and ages or creation dates that can be used to build up such graph? If possible, one per month or even one per quarter.
Sorry, I'll skip this one. Checking UTXO age means checking outputs and inputs. I haven't downloaded the latter yet. I don't think I can do this without adding everything to a database (which I can't do).
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
It's only one line per day, so around 250 kB in total. But I'll change my script a bit, see if I can improve performance so it doesn't take days.
Honestly, weeks ago, I downloaded your original data and it is huge, exceed my computer memory so I gave up. With the lighter data set, I can play with it.

Quote
I'm kinda interested to see how many 3-addresses are in use before SegWit.
Sure, I can join the party and I am familiar when handling such stuffs.

Anyway, it was requested by bitmover first so I won't break his fun here. If bitmover needs help, please ask. Or if after he releases his work and I see I can make polishment I will join the party.  Tongue


A little bit derail:

Could you dump data for UTXO and ages or creation dates that can be used to build up such graph? If possible, one per month or even one per quarter.
https://hodlwave.com/#
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Can we make this file smaller?
It's only one line per day, so around 250 kB in total. But I'll change my script a bit, see if I can improve performance so it doesn't take days. Update: it's running again, and about 30 times faster. I'll have the data either tonight or tomorrow morning.

Quote
We only need data since 02/26/2018 (Bitcoin Core segwit release date).
I'm kinda interested to see how many 3-addresses are in use before SegWit.
sr. member
Activity: 1372
Merit: 322
The reason behind bech32 holding less bitcoin is most of the services don't support bech32, as a result they don't hold their bitcoin in bech32 as well (if they would, they would support too I think).
It's sad. Segwit adoption would give us more space to block. I don't get what's wrong with some services, why don't they support segwit.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
It's currently processing 112 GB compressed data, and it's slooooooooooooooow. If this proves useful I'll create another topic for it and add automated daily updates.

I'm hoping you'll create a nice graph showing the use of each address type over time, including the total (daily) value sent to those addresses.

Thanks LoyceV.

For now, my computer does not have the required disk space to process that data. I only have a small notebook with a single SSD drive of 250gb, and only about 100gb free.

Can we make this file smaller?
We only need data since 02/26/2018 (Bitcoin Core segwit release date). This will make the file much smaller. Can you slice off all data prior to this data? how much will the file be?
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
I had some time, so how's this:
Code:
date,1 addy count,3 addy count,Bech32 addy count,1 addy value,3 addy value,Bech32 addy value
2009-01-03,1,0,0,5000000000,,
2009-01-09,14,0,0,70000000000,,
2009-01-10,61,0,0,305000000000,,
2009-01-11,93,0,0,465000000000,,
2009-01-12,106,0,0,487900000000,,
2009-01-13,123,0,0,615000000000,,
2009-01-14,130,0,0,651100000000,,
2009-01-15,140,0,0,680000000000,,
2009-01-16,110,0,0,560000000000,,
2009-01-17,109,0,0,545000000000,,
2009-01-18,108,0,0,550000000000,,
2009-01-19,117,0,0,652500000000,,
2009-01-20,115,0,0,610000000000,,
2009-01-21,103,0,0,520000000000,,
2009-01-22,92,0,0,505000000000,,
2009-01-23,86,0,0,465000000000,,
2009-01-24,202,0,0,1055000000000,,
2009-01-25,192,0,0,960000000000,,
2009-01-26,97,0,0,580000000000,,
2009-01-27,98,0,0,500000000000,,
2009-01-28,112,0,0,560000000000,,
2009-01-29,122,0,0,665000000000,,
2009-01-30,117,0,0,585000000000,,
2009-01-31,139,0,0,790000000000,,
2009-02-01,114,0,0,575000000000,,
2009-02-02,129,0,0,645000000000,,
2009-02-03,169,0,0,768652000000,,
2009-02-04,119,0,0,595000000000,,
2009-02-05,126,0,0,630000000000,,
2009-02-06,122,0,0,610000000000,,
2009-02-07,134,0,0,764800000000,,
2009-02-08,133,0,0,760000000000,,
2009-02-09,135,0,0,890000000000,,
2009-02-10,120,0,0,600000000000,,
2009-02-11,135,0,0,720004000000,,
2009-02-12,119,0,0,595000000000,,
2009-02-13,124,0,0,620000000000,,
2009-02-14,136,0,0,680000000000,,
2009-02-15,131,0,0,730000000000,,
2009-02-16,123,0,0,760000000000,,
2009-02-17,117,0,0,585000000000,,
2009-02-18,118,0,0,590000000000,,
2009-02-19,125,0,0,700000000000,,
2009-02-20,122,0,0,610000000000,,
It's currently processing 112 GB compressed data, and it's slooooooooooooooow. If this proves useful I'll create another topic for it and add automated daily updates.

I'm hoping you'll create a nice graph showing the use of each address type over time, including the total (daily) value sent to those addresses.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
Bech32 address usage seem to be growing faster...

yes, that's the optimistic part Smiley


[snip]...as more wallets start adding it and people stop needing the "workaround" that is the P2SH-P2WPKH type.



...also, the "P2SH" section includes _some_ segwit addresses, but it's impossible to know how many (this section of BTC addresses on the blockchain are all scripts protected by hashes, and the script is unknown until a transaction is spent from that address)

But if you look at the stats for _spends from_ P2SH-wrapped segwit and bech32 segwit addresses (as I said, once you spend from P2SH, the script becomes known), P2SH-segwit is consistently twice as used as bech32.




on another note: I don't actually care that much


every time someone spends from legacy addresses, it constrains the blockweight, keeping blocks smaller ;P


Lukedashjr actually advices the active Bitcoin users to use Legacy because of that reason, keeping blocks smaller, and keep the blockchain size as small as much as it can be done possible.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
Bech32 address usage seem to be growing faster...

yes, that's the optimistic part Smiley


[snip]...as more wallets start adding it and people stop needing the "workaround" that is the P2SH-P2WPKH type.



...also, the "P2SH" section includes _some_ segwit addresses, but it's impossible to know how many (this section of BTC addresses on the blockchain are all scripts protected by hashes, and the script is unknown until a transaction is spent from that address)

But if you look at the stats for _spends from_ P2SH-wrapped segwit and bech32 segwit addresses (as I said, once you spend from P2SH, the script becomes known), P2SH-segwit is consistently twice as used as bech32.




on another note: I don't actually care that much


every time someone spends from legacy addresses, it constrains the blockweight, keeping blocks smaller ;P
legendary
Activity: 3402
Merit: 10424
That chart really looks optimist, but is there really all that 60%+ adoption?
there is a difference between SegWit adoption (the transactionfee.info chart) and Bech32 adoption (the pie charts you posted). the first one is measuring how many transactions have witnesses and the later is measuring how many bech32 outputs are being created or in your case how many bech32 addresses are used.
the SegWit adoption is at that ~60% and has plateaued (with small/slow increases). Bech32 address usage seem to be growing faster though as more wallets start adding it and people stop needing the "workaround" that is the P2SH-P2WPKH type.


See not all people support SegWit , there are countless articles on the internet stating how it's a super bad thing and is destroying the system itself. I will quote one below :
that's the problem with the internet, every idiot can pretend to be an expert and then give "expert advice" to others!

Quote
“Segregated witness is systematically destroying everything good and worthwhile about Bitcoin: segwit is inelegant and complicated; it creates two parallel sets of rules for evaluating transactions, but ignores one of them. Segwit breaks Bitcoin’s security by empowering miners and anyone who can coerce them to steal balances. And segwit is breaking the Bitcoin ecosystem up, causing people to fork the blockchain just to avoid using it, and destroying the mind share, confidence, and name recognition in Bitcoin.”

every single sentence in this quote is pure nonsense. people like this dude are the reason why to this day there are beginners who think SegWit removes signatures from transactions!
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818

So, we can conclude that we are having more segwit transactions now than before. But most of the bitcoins are still in legacy addresses.


How old are those UTXOs, and when were the dates last received from those addresses?

See not all people support SegWit , there are countless articles on the internet stating how it's a super bad thing and is destroying the system itself. I will quote one below :

Quote
“Segregated witness is systematically destroying everything good and worthwhile about Bitcoin: segwit is inelegant and complicated; it creates two parallel sets of rules for evaluating transactions, but ignores one of them. Segwit breaks Bitcoin’s security by empowering miners and anyone who can coerce them to steal balances. And segwit is breaking the Bitcoin ecosystem up, causing people to fork the blockchain just to avoid using it, and destroying the mind share, confidence, and name recognition in Bitcoin.”


You can read more at : https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@bitcoinshirtz/the-hard-truth-about-segwit

This statement is made by a guy Nathan :


Well apparently I don't know much about this guy but he seems to have a lot of problems with segWit , but being a software developer he should understand for a fact that , these things needs to adapt, if the transaction fee of bitcoins doesn't have a solution soon , it will have problems for the people for sure. People will opt for other solutions.

As for me I do use SegWit to send/recieve but there are many wallets and exchanges who doesn't support it therefore that's a downside and limits my options.

I believe we do have a serious matter of discussion here, the advantages and disadvantages of segWit. Since am not a professional nor qualified to even answer this , I would leave it for the fellow techno experts.


That's Grade-A FUD from a person who is gaslighting and spreading disinformation. I had very long debates about it against fudsters, big blockers, and trolls.
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 3858
You can get more details from time-series plots there https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1&from=now-5y&to=now

According to these, it seems your playing time with data results in almost fitted results with data from txstats.com. Congratulations for your good works  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6231
Crypto Swap Exchange
How many addresses out there are cold storage / physical things that have funds sitting on them in legacy addresses?
They will probably be there for a long time.
How many are paper wallets?
There are a few other reasons I can think of that legacy is still around and being used.

-Dave
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
Note that the green addresses in your pie chart also include multisig.
Indeed.
But as far as I understand, those multisig addresses you are talking about are P2SH-multisig addresses.
They are not P2SH-Segwit, but still P2SH.


I found this:

Quote
P2SH multisig
A P2SH output where the redeem script uses one of the multisig opcodes. Up until Bitcoin Core 0.10.0, P2SH multisig scripts were standard transactions, but most other P2SH scripts were not.

Not to be confused with: Multisig pubkey scripts (also called “bare multisig”, these multisig scripts don’t use P2SH encapsulation), P2SH (general P2SH, of which P2SH multisig is a specific instance that was special cased up until Bitcoin Core 0.10.0)

...

Multisig
Bare multisig

A pubkey script that provides n number of pubkeys and requires the corresponding signature script provide m minimum number signatures corresponding to the provided pubkeys.

Not to be confused with: P2SH multisig (a multisig script contained inside P2SH), Advanced scripts that require multiple signatures without using OP_CHECKMULTISIG or OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
Source: https://developer.bitcoin.org/glossary.html


So, Bare multisig addresses do not start with 3, as they are not P2SH address.  are they a legacy format.?

Maybe someone can give more information about this?


Edit:Just to add a bit of more information

From mastering bitcoin:
Quote
Pay-to-Script Hash (P2SH) and Multisig Addresses
Bitcoin addresses that begin with the number “3” are pay-to-script hash (P2SH) addresses, sometimes erroneously called multisignature or multisig addresses. They designate the beneficiary of a bitcoin transaction as the hash of a script, instead of the owner of a public key. The feature was introduced in January 2012 with BIP-16 (see [appdxbitcoinimpproposals]), and is being widely adopted because it provides the opportunity to add functionality to the address itself. Unlike transactions that "send" funds to traditional “1” bitcoin addresses, also known as a pay-to-public-key-hash (P2PKH), funds sent to “3” addresses require something more than the presentation of one public key hash and one private key signature as proof of ownership. The requirements are designated at the time the address is created, within the script, and all inputs to this address will be encumbered with the same requirements.


..

Multisignature addresses and P2SH
Currently, the most common implementation of the P2SH function is the multi-signature address script. As the name implies, the underlying script requires more than one signature to prove ownership and therefore spend funds. The bitcoin multi-signature feature is designed to require M signatures (also known as the “threshold”) from a total of N keys, known as an M-of-N multisig, where M is equal to or less than N. For example, Bob the coffee shop owner from [ch01_intro_what_is_bitcoin] could use a multisignature address requiring 1-of-2 signatures from a key belonging to him and a key belonging to his spouse, ensuring either of them could sign to spend a transaction output locked to this address. This would be similar to a “joint account” as implemented in traditional banking where either spouse can spend with a single signature. Or Gopesh, the web designer paid by Bob to create a website, might have a 2-of-3 multisignature address for his business that ensures that no funds can be spent unless at least two of the business partners sign a transaction.


So, to sum up:
I believe it is safe to say that 3.... addresses are all P2SH.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Can you do one with only addresses that have been received over the past year?
I think this could be interesting as well. Probably a pie chart of all UTXO by address format since 2017 when the first segwit wallets were released.

I can't do with the data I used, but it is certainly easy to find. I think loycev made this data available in csv format here  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54373224
I think you're looking for this data. It's 112 GB (at 100 kB/s), and gives each address per block. That should be enough to create a graph with the number of addresses per type per day.
I still have the data, so I can extract some of it for you or give you a faster download, but it's still going to be a lot of data.



Note that the green addresses in your pie chart also include multisig.
hero member
Activity: 1862
Merit: 830
See not all people support SegWit , there are countless articles on the internet stating how it's a super bad thing and is destroying the system itself. I will quote one below :

Quote
“Segregated witness is systematically destroying everything good and worthwhile about Bitcoin: segwit is inelegant and complicated; it creates two parallel sets of rules for evaluating transactions, but ignores one of them. Segwit breaks Bitcoin’s security by empowering miners and anyone who can coerce them to steal balances. And segwit is breaking the Bitcoin ecosystem up, causing people to fork the blockchain just to avoid using it, and destroying the mind share, confidence, and name recognition in Bitcoin.”


-snip-

Well apparently I don't know much about this guy but he seems to have a lot of problems with segWit , but being a software developer he should understand for a fact that , these things needs to adapt, if the transaction fee of bitcoins doesn't have a solution soon , it will have problems for the people for sure. People will opt for other solutions.

This is a 3 year old article.

By that time, bitcoin was forking into bitcoin and bch.
There was a lot of misinformation around the web to promote BCH fork. There was also a lot of uncertainty about bitcoin future, segwit, blocksize and so on. This article was one of those that promoted misinformation. Nobody would ever publish an article like that today.

If you look back 3 years ago, all bch drama and discussion about blocksize/segwit may look ridiculous. But there were a lot of early bitcoin  holders and adopters who were mislead into by buying BCH.

Yes, but I have seen some people who still insists on using normal addresses, but at the same time samourai wallet is like the most secure , most private one that I ever used , it was suggested by someone on this forum years back and I still use it till now.

Even though the article is like 3 years old but it still appears on the front page , no one even thought about updating it , nor there was any additional information and such.

I believe the only disadvantage of segWit is :
It's limits your choices since most wallets don't support it.

°~°

I believe with time those people for sure exchanged their coins in BTC now.

The problem is , if a newbie , if a non tech person , who just joined searches on google , this is what he will get , which unfortunately is misleading as you said it , that is why I said I would leave this discussion for tech experts.

-maybe someone should start making blog ? Share opinions and stuff there ? Since there are many limited positive articles regarding it. Which might influence the usage too.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
See not all people support SegWit , there are countless articles on the internet stating how it's a super bad thing and is destroying the system itself. I will quote one below :

Quote
“Segregated witness is systematically destroying everything good and worthwhile about Bitcoin: segwit is inelegant and complicated; it creates two parallel sets of rules for evaluating transactions, but ignores one of them. Segwit breaks Bitcoin’s security by empowering miners and anyone who can coerce them to steal balances. And segwit is breaking the Bitcoin ecosystem up, causing people to fork the blockchain just to avoid using it, and destroying the mind share, confidence, and name recognition in Bitcoin.”


-snip-

Well apparently I don't know much about this guy but he seems to have a lot of problems with segWit , but being a software developer he should understand for a fact that , these things needs to adapt, if the transaction fee of bitcoins doesn't have a solution soon , it will have problems for the people for sure. People will opt for other solutions.

This is a 3 year old article.

By that time, bitcoin was forking into bitcoin and bch.
There was a lot of misinformation around the web to promote BCH fork. There was also a lot of uncertainty about bitcoin future, segwit, blocksize and so on. This article was one of those that promoted misinformation. Nobody would ever publish an article like that today.

If you look back 3 years ago, all bch drama and discussion about blocksize/segwit may look ridiculous. But there were a lot of early bitcoin  holders and adopters who were mislead into by buying BCH.
hero member
Activity: 1862
Merit: 830
See not all people support SegWit , there are countless articles on the internet stating how it's a super bad thing and is destroying the system itself. I will quote one below :

Quote
“Segregated witness is systematically destroying everything good and worthwhile about Bitcoin: segwit is inelegant and complicated; it creates two parallel sets of rules for evaluating transactions, but ignores one of them. Segwit breaks Bitcoin’s security by empowering miners and anyone who can coerce them to steal balances. And segwit is breaking the Bitcoin ecosystem up, causing people to fork the blockchain just to avoid using it, and destroying the mind share, confidence, and name recognition in Bitcoin.”


You can read more at : https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@bitcoinshirtz/the-hard-truth-about-segwit

This statement is made by a guy Nathan :


Well apparently I don't know much about this guy but he seems to have a lot of problems with segWit , but being a software developer he should understand for a fact that , these things needs to adapt, if the transaction fee of bitcoins doesn't have a solution soon , it will have problems for the people for sure. People will opt for other solutions.

As for me I do use SegWit to send/recieve but there are many wallets and exchanges who doesn't support it therefore that's a downside and limits my options.

I believe we do have a serious matter of discussion here, the advantages and disadvantages of segWit. Since am not a professional nor qualified to even answer this , I would leave it for the fellow techno experts.
legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1292
There is trouble abrewing
i don't think looking at addresses is going to give us the best metric here because an address may have been created any time. for instance i have a funded address that is from before SegWit and i have never touched it because there is no reson to, but that doesn't mean i haven't been using SegWit for all my transactions.

the best metric in my opinion is the number of SegWit inputs per block. for example if a block has 2000 transactions and that is 2500 inputs and out of those 1500 are SegWit inputs then you can say the adoption is 60%.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
Can you do one with only addresses that have been received over the past year?

I think this could be interesting as well. Probably a pie chart of all UTXO by address format since 2017 when the first segwit wallets were released.

I can't do with the data I used, but it is certainly easy to find. I think loycev made this data available in csv format here  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54373224

I just need to dig into it.


There is no reason to use legacy. I have been using bech32 nearly since it got added into Electrum. The incentive is there, you pay a tiny little bit less in transaction fees. Could this be some exchange that keep being the bulk users still with outdated systems in place? Maybe the pools as well?

The only real reason to use Legacy is to be able to sign a message which signature is recognized by every software. Other than that, just disadvantages, as you pointed out.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1561
CLEAN non GPL infringing code made in Rust lang
There is no reason to use legacy. I have been using bech32 nearly since it got added into Electrum. The incentive is there, you pay a tiny little bit less in transaction fees. Could this be some exchange that keep being the bulk users still with outdated systems in place? Maybe the pools as well?

Well usage is voluntary, same as LN; but personally i see no reason to keep using legacy or P2SH addresses. And yes, P2SH pays a bit more than bech32, so don't use the excuse that its "the same thing" and move everything into bech32. You will appreciate it the next time you move funds from a bech32 address, its cool and it works.

Motivation

For most of its history, Bitcoin has relied on base58 addresses with a truncated double-SHA256 checksum. They were part of the original software and their scope was extended in BIP13 for Pay-to-script-hash (P2SH). However, both the character set and the checksum algorithm have limitations:

  • Base58 needs a lot of space in QR codes, as it cannot use the alphanumeric mode.
  • The mixed case in base58 makes it inconvenient to reliably write down, type on mobile keyboards, or read out loud.
  • The double SHA256 checksum is slow and has no error-detection guarantees.
  • Most of the research on error-detecting codes only applies to character-set sizes that are a prime power, which 58 is not.
  • Base58 decoding is complicated and relatively slow.
copper member
Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071
https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory
Can you do one with only addresses that have been received over the past year?

Some people probably haven't bothered updating and a few might not even know about it... For both bitcoin core and electrum you have to make a new wallet and it took me about a year to do that myself so.... I think Hardware wallets have also taken a longer amount of time to update them to use segwit (although trezor's Web client does suggest you update from legacy).
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 5622
Non-custodial BTC Wallet
I saw a nice topic today about services that support segwit, by dkbit98.

I saw a question about adoption, and I decided to investigate further into:

Quote
Native Segwit adoption is on the rise
i'm curious if there is any data to support this, i thought it plateaued a while ago.

I made a quick google search and found something herE:
https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments-spending-segwit/



That chart really looks optimist, but is there really all that 60%+ adoption?

I looked today at LoyceV tsv file with all addresses with balance, and I made these 2 charts.

The first one is the sum of all balances by address format. We can clearly see that Legacy address holds more than 63% of all balance available.

If you sum all the balance you can see that every bitcoin in included in the graphic, 18.525 million btc

Someone could argue: "But those old addresses are mostly old and abandoned, many whale wallets lost, abandoned, etc"

So I decided to make a second chart: Number of addresses by format.


The situation is even worse...

So, we can conclude that we are having more segwit transactions now than before. But most of the bitcoins are still in legacy addresses.


There is a lot of potential uses in that TSV files LoyceV made. I will try to make better analysis or charts later on.

Edit:
Found a better way to calculate segwit adoption using transaction_count.txt and witness_count.txt in Bitcoin block data available in CSV format (LoyceV/blockchair data)
Jump to: