Topic: Why people should be using SegWit addresses - page 2. (Read 1460 times)

After paid2 translated my topic already some weeks ago, I've now added the French translation to my list as well:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
French (Français)	paid2	Pourquoi tout le monde devrait utiliser des adresses Segwit

Nice to have my topic in the French Bitcointalk section and many thanks @paid2 for providing a translation. 

You translation is much appreciated and it's approved already, well done.
Hopefully, you've learned something about SegWit as well.  

I've added your translation to my OP:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Nigeria (Naija)	knowngunman	Na why people go dey use SegWit addresses

It's always helpful to have nice members translating important content.  

---

I've listed GazetaBitcoin's Romanian translation and my German translation, too.

Thank you for giving your consent to translate your thread. I'm pleased to inform you that the translation is completed and I will like you to have a look at it here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63092260

Thank you.

Hello 

You have my permission to translate if of course.
SegWit is a very important topic of Bitcoin and it's also helping us to lower transaction fees. It's nice to get a translation for a topic about SegWit.

I've reserved your translation:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Nigeria	knowngunman (reserved)	reserved

@1miau I will like to translate the op to pidgin in Nigeria local board with your permission.

Welcome, as always

---

Yup, I noticed. And I also observed that you also grouped Legacy and Multisig addresses under same "class", in the upper side of the table. Indeed, the table looks much better by having the addresses separated by their "class".

And, of course (after fighting again, like a true gladiator, with BBCode's "_"s) I also added the changes to translated topic.

---

Anytime, glad I could help! If I spot anything else, I'll let you know

Much appreciated, dear Gazetabitcoin. 

---

After diligent evaluation, I've come to the conclusion to arrange it like that: adding lines to "regroup" address formats, where native SegWit (bc1q...) and Taproot (bc1p...) are part of the same group:


Of course, suggestions or ideas are always welcome. 

---

Yes, it's reviewed and updated now in my topic. 
Many thanks again for your valuable contribution. 

Hey 1miau, thank you for this long-waited update of OP Besides that, I'd also like to ensure you that all changes you brought to OP are now reflected in the translated topic as well. In case you will add also a new table structure I will also make this change. But, until then, Romanian translation is 100% mirroring the original topic.

Other than that, please check your PM, as I sent you a few minor suggestions about OP. I hope this helps.

Cheers!

That's a good idea, I'll try to think about a better table structure implementing your suggestion.
Maybe next weekend I should have time to come up with a good solution.  

I've already changed this line here as it's a good solution in my opinion:

---

Exactly, it's because sometimes, people are confusing nested SegWit (P2WPKH-P2SH / P2WSH-P2SH) and Multisig (P2SH) which both are starting with 3... but only one of them is (nested) SegWit.
Originally, the idea to write the part came up because many Signature campaign participants didn't know about it, so it was a good explanation for them back then.  

You are right, all bc1 addresses are segwit and that is what we should refer segwit as, but I think the main reason 1miau emphasized on bc1p is just for people to understand, especially newbies, that all bc1p addresses are segwit (that all pay-to-taproot addresses are segwit), which means P2TR is segwit. I think that can be taken correct for people to just understand what P2TR is all about.

Maybe you should not be differentiating Taproot from SegWit so "heavily".
I see Taproot a subset (more correctly it's a newer version) of SegWit. So bc1*, no matter it's bc1q, bc1p or other letters corresponding to the newer versions that'll come up (since that p or q after bc1 simply reflect the version of the bech32 address), the benefits should remain.

Since Taproot-Addresses have been launched for a while now, I've added a few lines including them in my overview:

---

---

---

---

Prefix	Category	Format
________	__________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
bc1p…	Taproot-Address	P2TR-bech32m (pay to tap root)

...

bc1p… Addresses starting with bc1p, are always SegWit.

....

---

Native SegWit or nested SegWit?

After reading the lines above and finding out about the benefits of using SegWit addresses, you may be wondering what the differences are between a native SegWit address (bech32, starts with bc1q...) / Taproot Address (bech32m, starts with bc1p) compared to a nested SegWit address (P2WPKH-P2SH / P2WSH-P2SH, starts with 3....).
For us, it is important to know that using a native SegWit Address / Taproot-Address will result in even lower fees compared to a nested SegWit address.  

Savings when sending from a nested SegWit address (3...) compared to a normal legacy address (1...) are 26% +.
Savings when sending from a native SegWit address (bc1q...) compared to a normal legacy address (1...) are 38% +.
Depending on the number of inputs to the address, savings are variable, with a higher number of inputs saving even more in percentages.

Added in November 2022: now, Taproot-Adresses (bc1p), are also available. In terms of saving fees, Taproot-Addresses are similarly effective as native SegWit Addresses (bc1q…). Savings compared to a normal legacy address (1...) are 38% +
A detailled calculation can be found here, provided by Charles-Tim.
It's because of native SegWit and Taproot are technically very similar because native SegWit and Taproot are part of the Witness Programm (bech32 / bech32m).

...

---

---

---

---

All details are included in my OP.
In general, it's nice to see Bitcoin progressing from a technical point and I'm honored to include Taproot-Addresses in my OP.  

Sorry for this distraction about 'people should use segwit', I think we should more focus on it.

Another reason Trustwallet is not recommendable

You can check the code on GitHub, but as for people that are not developers, the best way is to ask on forum like this because some wallets are just not completely open source. Coinomi is close source either, although it was open source few years ago.

Hi @Charles-Tim, I'm using Trust wallet as one of my main wallets so I can say that the address is not changing after making a successful transaction, it is permanent. And I didn't know that it was a close source.

How it is being determined if a wallet is an open or close source? How about Coinomi? Its addresses are changed after making a successful transaction.

Thank you, 1miau, for taking into consideration the suggestion to update the pictures and the percentages. Numbers look better day by day.

I also take this opportunity to let you know that the Romanian translation of your topic was updated as well, with the new pictures and numbers you provided.

Cheers!

Compressed block is one of the most important advantage I understood about Segregated Witness addresses. This kind of update gave me the conviction that bitcoin in the future would be transformed. Though 1btc will be 1btc but to make btc absolutely scalable and worthy to be adopted as a universal reserve, so many things would need to change. And PoW not an exception. There must be a way to do it without a hard fork. When there is an absolute need for it, there would definitely be a consensus.

Until today, are there still such websites that are not updated, I mean are there websites that rejects the bech32 address format?

I will choose the second to be the reason. Although, withdrawal fee on Binance was previously 0.0005 BTC which has been reduced to 0.0002 BTC which is $4 if bitcoin price is $20000. If I used $0.03 fee for 1 input and 1 output transaction with bitcoin.price of $20000, the withdrawal fee is still high though.

Even I will not advice you to import seed phrase or private key generated by Trustwallet because it is a close source wallet, we do not know how the seed phrase is generated, maybe it is even pre-generated, no one knows. Best send your bitcoin to an open source wallet instead of using seed phrase or private key import.

I know this but I'm using truswallet only for daily transaction and I have tried to import the multiwallet private key and then multiple bitcoin address showed up. but it sill fine tho


yep most of them seems doesn't care even my local exchange still doesn't implement the SegWit

They will never compromise their profits as they have set up buisness for the same purpose so LN channels are obstacles as well competition for them as it avoids the fees structure and they have to spend huge amounts on setting up infrastructure to avoid any bugs as single bug could lead to the loss of millions of funds of the users.But you see they have huge customer base and will not loose it fast until people become aware that how these chains are not safe rather than risky to have the funds over there.

The last report by glassnode about exchanges bitcoin utilisation was also showing the increased adoption of segwit integration on bitcoin protocol and your latest report also shows the same :



With FTX and coinbase having 100% of utilisation while the others having less of it and most famous exchange are having adequate SegWit adoption as clear from the images.

This is the case most of them trust seeing many storing their funds over these platforms like Binance but this doesn't imply the fund safety but the fact is many didn't realise it and are using their chains and pumping shit tokens high with huge portion of supply with centralised control and making them billionaire but we see increase number of people with them.

Even more, I think that most exchange are taking it slow with LN because those huge fees also make users consider keeping their coins in exchanges' custody (I've read a good number of times that people keep their money here and there because their friends also have money on the same platform and sending bitcoins to each other is free. Of course, they don't realize that it's off chain and the implications).

Then, let's be fair: LN is still labeled as "beta". Businesses will hide between this label whenever it suits them.


So, let's see their point of view: on chain, big bucks from fees, people keep their money in custody because of this or use shitcoins and "smart chains" (oh, the irony!) versus spending money into implementing/adopting something new, labeled as beta, which makes all that income and advantages (slowly) disappear.
As long as the number of exchanges actually using LN is small (i.e. the competition), the big ones have no benefit in doing that.