If I create a new wallet, and send a segwit transaction there (for example, to claim forked coins), which wallet need to have a segwit address (starting with 3), the one which is sending the bitcoin, or the one which is receiving it?
I tried to send to another wallet with a segwit address, but the fee was even higher than to a normal address. The recipient was a segwit address, the sender was legacy. The normal address on the recipient was asking standard fees.
My current wallet holding bitcoins is from august 2017, before segwit locked in. Should I make another legacy wallet, send a legacy transaction there, and only then create a third wallet which would be segwit?
Or can my current wallet, which was created before the lock-in, generate a segwit address (starting with 3), and then send to a legacy address in a second wallet, which would not have any segwit address?
Topic: What is the difference between Segwit? Native Segwit? Legacy? Which one better? - page 3. (Read 994 times)
January 08, 2018, 04:03:45 PM
January 08, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
Segwit basically does one thing: It removes redundant data from the transaction, and therefore lowers the size.
You have the choice between native segwit (bech32, starting with bc1...) and P2WPKH nested into P2SH (starting with 3... ).
Legacy addresses are the 'original' addresses which were introduced first (starting with 1..).
P2WPKH/P2SH addresses have the advantage of lowering transaction size ~30% (compared to legacy).
Bech32 transations are even smaller, but unfortunately a lot of online services don't accept these address type yet.
You have the choice between native segwit (bech32, starting with bc1...) and P2WPKH nested into P2SH (starting with 3... ).
Legacy addresses are the 'original' addresses which were introduced first (starting with 1..).
P2WPKH/P2SH addresses have the advantage of lowering transaction size ~30% (compared to legacy).
Bech32 transations are even smaller, but unfortunately a lot of online services don't accept these address type yet.
January 07, 2018, 05:03:06 PM
Some discussions about it happened here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251039.0
January 07, 2018, 08:37:53 AM
I'm not sure what native segwit is, presumably that's just a pay-to-script transaction.
Legacy is the "original" transaction protocol. Segwit was set in place to reduce the demand on the network which is normally an address beginning with a 3 or a bech address (represented differently, normally with bv1 at the start).
Onto transaction times: both will confirm in the same amount of time for a specific fee (the legacy transaction fee will be higher). As a segwit transaction is slightly smaller, a lower fee can be paid and smaller transactions might fit into a block better than larger ones.
Legacy is the "original" transaction protocol. Segwit was set in place to reduce the demand on the network which is normally an address beginning with a 3 or a bech address (represented differently, normally with bv1 at the start).
Onto transaction times: both will confirm in the same amount of time for a specific fee (the legacy transaction fee will be higher). As a segwit transaction is slightly smaller, a lower fee can be paid and smaller transactions might fit into a block better than larger ones.
January 07, 2018, 07:03:02 AM
As the title says, what is the difference between them and which one is better to use for making each incoming and outcoming transaction confirmation faster?
Jump to: