Topic: What is the difference between Segwit? Native Segwit? Legacy? Which one better? (Read 969 times)

This graphics is quite inaccurate.


P2PKH type addresses always start with 1.. and P2SH always start with 3...




P2SH has been here since ( almost) the beginning.
P2SH (and therefore multisig addresses) got introduced 2012.

Each wallet supports these. At least it should if it is considered a somewhat proper wallet.

P2SH is nothing new.
P2WPKH nested into P2SH (nested segwit) is somewhat new, but the addresses are not distinguishable until one has used its private key to create a transaction.


Additionally i am missing a few pros/cons for each type on that graphic.

Source:

https://in.pinterest.com/pin/605241637403633867/

everything you needed to understand the two segwit types is on page 1 of this thread. we're only on page 3 right now.

Hey Carlton,

it's quite singular that you mistake trying to understand for "complicating" ..

if I wanted some suggestions on what to do without knowing what I am doing I would probably follow your advice. But I am trying to comprehend how this works: if you can help on that, fine; if you wish I would follow blind instructions that's not the case.

I see you haven't changed since the times of Bel Air, always blindingly trying to feed your ego  .. Massively.. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cpVFkF2dno

you're overcomplicating it still. massively.

just use the nested segwit addresses. the ones starting with a 3

it's easy. you can't go wrong that way

ok, thanks

I don't like the term 'platform-related', but in the end that's how it is.
I am convinced that the wallet which the platform (in this case: bitstamp) is using, accepts bech32.

It is just the website/webserver which checks if the entered address is a valid one which returns 'false' upon a bech32 address being entered.


So.. in the end.. yes. This is just because the platform/website didn't update their webserver code yet.




Yes.
Each half-way up-do-date software will allow you to send coins to a bech32 address. This includes hardware-/mobile-/desktop- and some webwallets.

so you are confirming that this type of interaction is sort of platform-related, meaning that it won't be the address to stop you from moving your funds but rather the platform which hosts that address if that platform is not up-to-date yet. Right?

This should explain your suggestion in the end: i.e. a P2SH  <-->  bech32 transfer from BitStamp to Ledger will not work; but a P2SH  <-->  bech32 transfer from Ledger to Ledger will work because Ledger's software is "ready" to that. Right?

You can send from any address type to any address type.

When you try to withdraw coins from bitstamp (or any other site), the website itself does a check to see if the address is valid.
For example, if you paste "helloo" into the address field, you get an error message that this is not a valid bitcoin address.

Bitstamp simply didn't update their software for a long time, so that once they see the string you entered starts with "bc1..", the software says "whoa whoa.. it is not starting with 1 or 3, so can't be a valid address", and therefore refusing to proceed with the withdrawal.

They simply didn't update their code.


Each wallet accepts transactions from each address type to each address type.
This is not an issue at all.


Protocol-wise, it definitely is possible.
Each desktop-/mobile-/hardware- walllet supports that.

Just quite a few shitty outdated online-services don't, because they didn't update their webserver code where the sanity check is happening.

---

P2SH is not segwit.
P2SH can also be a multi-signature address.

You won't know what kind of address this is after coins have been spent from it and you can take a look at the redeem script.


Nested segwit is P2WPKH nested into P2SH.
P2SH itself does not mean the address is a segwit-type address. Change the address format in this line to P2SH-P2WPKH and your table is correct.
The column "ledger supported" is quite senseless too.

Guys,
please allow me to tell you that you are not good at explaining and informing. It's not enough in my opinion to research and study, because if you can't explain a concept (simple, like this one is) concisely and with simple words to someone who is trying to understand, that's not exemplary in my opinion.

It took days and days of posting and in the end I had to be the one to come up with the simplest and most efficient of tools: a simple table. A plain. Simple. Table.

All you could provide were fragmentary, incomplete, disjointed and often conflicting pieces of answers. Ok.

That being said,

now please let me try to sort this out once for all with my humble tools and knowledge.


Now, if the info shown in the following chart is correct (and please don't bother remarking minor misunderstandings in the attempt to reaffirm your expertise: it should be clear by now what we are talking about and what I am focusing on)

Address Format	Beginning with	Age & Diffusion	Synonim to	BitStamp Supported	Ledger Supported
Bech32	bc1	Most recent one, still not massively widespread	Native Segwit	no	yes
P2SH	3	The "classic" one, the matter-of-fact standard as to adoption	Nested Segwit	yes	yes
P2PKH	1	The "old" one, doesn't make much sense anymore to activate this kind of address now	Legacy?	we don't care	we don't care

how is that even possible to perform the kind of action suggested by these users?





If the BitStamp address (which is in the P2SH format as we confirmed) is not able to send funds to a bech32 address in the first place, how can I send them from BitStamp to a P2SH address and THEN send them to a bech32 once again? If these two kinds of address don't interact with eachother from BitStamp towards Ledger, why would they interact from Ledger to Ledger? I would have done this in the first place straigh from BitStamp, wouldn't I?

Does this imply that the compatibility between the two address formats is not "address-related" but rather "platform-related"? Let me repeat that: Why if these two kind of addresses don't interact with eachother from BitStamp towards Ledger, why would they interact from Ledger to Ledger??


Is it so bizarre assuming that such an important focus should be explained and taken care of when answering to someone who is asking for information, who is trying to understand how the hell all this works?

Don't you agree with me, men?

correct the word in bold please

and try not to use your phone to access the forum, it will make these autocorrect mistakes and confuse people reading the thread



you're overcomplicating it


just use nested Segwit until you've figured it out, it's the simplest way of reducing any potential mistakes

There is a much easier way. You can send all of your funds from BitStamp to your nested SegWit address. Generate a native SegWit address in the Ledger Live and transfer your coins there from your nested SegWit address. You don't have to move them to BitStamp again. While transfering coins between your addresses, you can set a low fee (1 sat/byte).

• Withdraw to P2SH address
• Send to bech32 address

But it isn't really necessary to pay an additional fee just to have them on a bech32 type address.
You might just use P2SH for all service and sites which do not accept bech32 yet (e.g. bitstamp), and use bech32 for all other transactions.

so it should be a Nested Segway, like you guys mentioned.

Now, the point is: if I wanted my amount of btc stored in the latest format (bech32 - Native Segwit) and given that BitStamp does not provide this kind of transfer, what can I do?

All I can figure out is just

• withdraw to a "regular" Segwit address (starting with 3) for the moment
• wait for Bitstamp to upgrade
• move the amount back to bitstamp, on a upgraded Native Segwit Address
• move it back once again to your ledger nano s, this time on a Native Segwit Address

any wiser suggestion?

ok, this may be the answer I was looking for:




source, Ledger's own support page
https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005195945

yes

(but Bitstamp can't send to those, as you know)



if they're calling it "Segwit", and choosing that gives your Ledger an address starting with a 3, then it's nested segwit. Maximum compatibility, hence why Bitstamp can send to that type

ok thanks, thanks for your explanation.

I perfectly understand your technical approach, but when I ask


what I am trying to do is try do understand in the first place is the meaning of this picture, i.e. the meaning of the difference between segwit and native segwit in this particular case.


as you can see, the picture doesn't mention bech 32, nested or whatever. It just mentions segwit vs native segwit, and I have to figure out which is which. That's why I asked

I need to understand: if I choose Native Segwit I am choosing a Bech32 format address (which now we discovered is not supported in BitStamp), but if I choose the other option, which is referred to as just Segwit, what the hell am I choosing??

That's what I would love to understand before setting up the address

P2SH is nested segwit (addresses starting with 3..).
It is quite sad that a lot of sites didn't upgrade their software yet to support bech32, but i guess why bother investing 5 minutes if you simply can stay outdated and risk losing customer in the future 


Also, nested segwit is not a synonym to segwit (at least it should not).

Bech32 = native segwit = (real) segwit
P2SH = nested segwit = P2WPKH nested into P2SH
P2PKH = legacy

so, I got the answer from BitStamp Support. They confirmed that at the moment they don't support withdrawals to Bech32 address formats, and suggested me for a P2SH format address: does this sound somewhat new to you or is it one of those kinds we already mentioned?

thanks to you both for your answers and link suggestions.

In the end I opened a ticket with BitStamp Support and asked them about it, after all that piece of news dates back to 2017: probably it just referred to Segwit, not native segwit.

And in fact my personal BTC address on BitStamp begins with 3, as you mentioned.

let's hear what they say