|
Title: which is better for now, stay with legacy or move to segwit address? Post by: bonooll on November 05, 2017, 02:22:00 PM Could anyone tell me:
For the upcoming hardfork(Segwit2x). Consider the hardfork could be success or fail, which one to do for now to get the best benefits, keep BTC in legacy address or move to segwit address? Title: Re: which is better for now, stay with legacy or move to segwit address? Post by: bob123 on November 05, 2017, 02:51:42 PM Its up to you. You don't have to store your coins on an explicit format to "gain profit" from the fork.
I would prefere the legacy format to store coins long-term. Thats just my personal opinion. But if you are going to spend a lot of your coins and moving them around quite frequently the legacy format may be better for you. Besides "only" having lower transaction fees/size there is "no real advantage" in storing them in segwit. Title: Re: which is better for now, stay with legacy or move to segwit address? Post by: TryNinja on November 05, 2017, 03:45:25 PM For the fork, I would just use a legacy address to avoid any compatibility issues with other wallets. But if you don't care, and it's just planning to keep using and storing your coins in the long term, I would use a Segwit address (if you are not using Electrum, since they are only supporting the bech32 format, which isn't supported by any major service atm).
Title: Re: which is better for now, stay with legacy or move to segwit address? Post by: Iranus on November 05, 2017, 08:33:33 PM You don't have to wait until after the fork to decide whether to use a SegWit address. SegWit was activated over two months ago now and yet, for some reason, the vast majority of users are still not using it.
The main advantage is the decrease in fees due to a decrease in the size of your transaction (in the eyes of legacy nodes). As more people begin to use it, the fees begin to decrease further. A problem is that there's not yet a standard for signing SegWit addresses, which makes verification difficult. |