Bitcoin Forum

Friends,
I've seen that being non-user of SegWit, there are no such benefits or advantages that we can accrue.
So, I wish to learn how to switch to SegWit completely?

I became aware of Segwitaddress.org to create an address directly from there, but if I use that address, will I be able to sign messages through that address (as the address is being provided with the private key itself)?

I also used an option that asks for a "WIF Private Key" (I entered my Legacy address, i.e.; 19RidcN96xgXkWi8gDwxcmbjjdjfrxpxvv's privkey) there and got an address that could be used to receive funds. But what I don't get here is, where will I see those funds and where can I use them from?
I mean, if I use the same privkey in any wallet, it will still show 19RidcN96xgXkWi8gDwxcmbjjdjfrxpxvv as my address and not the one I get from segwitaddress.org, what should be done here? As well, should I keep me Legacy address' privkey even if I adopt SegWit completely?

STOP

DO NOT enter your Bitcoin private keys to any type of website, ever.

There is no need to enter any private key. At best, this site is incompetently designed, at worst, a scam to steal your BTC

STOP

What if I already did it? Shall I take it as my current address 19RidcN96xgXkWi8gDwxcmbjjdjfrxpxvv's privkey has been compromised? Should I still use that address or change it to another one? As well, if that's not the site I should be using, please take me to something that's trustworthy and could get me a SegWit address. I use GreenAddress and GreenBits apps, they've currently given me with addresses starting with a '3'. Are these addresses just for one time use or can I use them normally just like I use my Legacy address? As I won't be holding private key of such address, is it safe to keep my funds there?

If you input your private key directly in the site without downloading the webpage and running it in tails then yes, consider that address compromised.

Electrum wallet can generate native segwit addresses (Bech32)
If you want for mobile then Samourai wallet can do that also.

 Addresses that start with 3 are P2SH addresses, Segwit addresses are P2SH-P2WPKH addresses so they start with 3 also.
IIRC Green Address and Green Bits addresses are multisig Segwit addresses.

You can use ANY bitcoin address as much times as you want as long as you hold the private key.
It is just not recommended because of privacy reasons and the hypothetical future when muh quantum computers will break bitcoin security.

I hope you have withdrown you BTC from your address (19RidcN96xgXkWi8gDwxcmbjjdjfrxpxvv). I checked the address and it has no BTC in it.

It looks like the last tx out of that address was a couple of days ago to the same destination address as previously used, so I think Stedsm's funds are safe.
From searching around it looks like it is not a phishing site it's an open source paper wallet generator https://github.com/coinables/segwitaddress
But as Carlton Banks said NEVER enter a private key into a website and it would best to assume that key is now compromised.

Samourai wallet? Can I use the same address to get paid more than once? Hope it's not the same as Blockchain.info's addresses, as they change once we use it.


Can I use those addresses? Once again, why won't I be able to sign message through these addresses?


I asked that question for SegWit addresses, not the one that's probably compromised, i.e.; 19RidcN96xgXkWi8gDwxcmbjjdjfrxpxvv

---

Yes, that transaction was done by me only. And I checked the source, which is why I used my private key there when I was online. I believe I should not receive any coins over that address anymore but should keep it to sign messages. Can you answer my queries told in the same comment?

You can reuse segwit addresses an infinite amount of times, just like legacy addresses (im talking about in general, not about this specific website hich im not even going to click) , but please, do not put your private key on that website or on any website ever, ideally never export your private key, your wallet software should never show your private key. To move your founds from one wallet to another, then just send yourself the coins from one address to another.

Not so sure about the Electrum part as I'm still not getting it, but all I can see is that, addresses are getting changed back to back whenever I get out of some apps (GreenBits and GreenAddress) and get back in. If it will be like this, how will I be able to receive coins multiple times over a single address when there will be a change after each transaction? Why can't we see a private key instead, so that we might just put it in some compatible wallet and start using it?

With electrum you keep the same addresses. Once you start the software, it will ask you if you want a legacy wallet or a segwit address, and then you get a wallet file, and this file will give you access to your coins, much like Bitcoin Core's wallet.dat, and also you will get a seed which can generate the content of this file anywhere you are at without holding the file (so save it somewhere that nobody can see it or better memorize them and destroy it).

You can always reuse addresses infinitely as long as you have the private key.
Wallets generate new addresses so people looking at the blockchain will not be able to track your transactions easily.
No matter how many addresses you use you'll always be able to control the funds if you used the same wallet to create the address.

Yes, you can use them.
You can't sign messages with Green Address or Greenbits because they are multisig addresses, meaning GreenAddress holds one set of private key while you have the other.

You can reuse any address (segwit or legacy ) as much as you like as long as you have the private key.

In bitcoin it's best to be paranoid about security so don't use that address anymore and consider it compromised.
If it's really compromised then whoever holds the private key can sign messages also.

You can say that again because Segwit is not implemented for Bitcoin and has been dropped but
it is confusing because I hear about Segwit wallets and I am not talking about Segwit2x here that uses B2X

Segwit proposal would had lead to bigger block sizes but they tried to redefine how they count bytes
to hide this for some reason which i really don't like
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBAG2Jp4bg

This is strictly untrue. Segwit as specified by BIPs 141, 143, and 144 is activated on Bitcoin. The original segwit2x proposal is not and is dead. Segwit is absolutely implemented for Bitcoin and was not dropped.

Thank you for making that clear and I stand corrected

Getting complicated since someone forked Segwit something and uses it for B2X

Not got a weeks to read and digest "BIPs 141, 143, and 144 " but do you have a Youtube link for this please
because the one I watched told a different story completely but is from 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBAG2Jp4bg

Basically he says the block gets spread over blk.dat and a "Block Extension" file using Segwit but i would like
to get my facts right about this and understand why it's not just a case of changes on the nodes but also
code in the wallet.

Maybe better you answer this question here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2679337.new#new
or open a new thread and PM me the link where we can go into detail because I am sure others would like to understand this too

Will electrum allow me to send coins to multiple addresses in a single transaction with a SegWit address, just like I do with my Legacy address?

---

I won't be using that address anymore, but to make everyone aware of the same, what should be done? Making a thread in Meta and signing a message with that address saying that its private key was used on a website and I believe it's now compromised, so don't send any coins there if someone asks anything by signing a message from that address. Will it do?

Yea, that will do IF the people going to send you coins check the meta section in the first place.
You can alternatively keep the private key of the address in case it's not actually compromised and  you eventually receive any payments there.
But DO NOT give it out as a receiving address any more.

That's good news. I always keep the private keys to all my old addresses for that reason. As was already pointed out if a key is compromised then potentially someone else could also sign a message but it is an unlikely way to hijack a bitcointalk account.


I'm not sure exactly which queries you mean. If it is about signing messages using Segwit addresses then the answer is not to use P2SH-P2WPKH addresses (the ones that start with 3) but to use bech32 native Segwit addresses starting bc1.
I've been using this on Electrum since mid-November. With Electrum it is easy to use multiple wallets so I've kept my legacy address wallet so I can still receive payments from sites that don't yet support withdrawals to bech32 addresses. Hopefully, after Core 0.16.0 is released then everyone will start to introduce support and I can retire the legacy wallet.

I'll be opening a thread in Meta and telling people about the situation, so as to stop a "possible hack" of my account.


Thanks to you and everyone who helped me out, I've finally downloaded Electrum wallet, saved my key and generated SegWit addresses as well.
Don't know how will I be able to sign messages from these bech32 addresses, though. But I am all fine now and hope that it will be beneficial for me as well as the senders/receivers from/to whom I get/send Bitcoins. Will sign a message and post a thread in Meta in a few moments.

In Electrum go to the Addresses tab select the address with right click Sign/verify Message put your message in and click sign, it will ask for your password and then give you the signature.

Here's one I just did:

Message: Test signed message from TheQuin

Address: bc1q94c5auxrxzhgk5uyuee0e2nu2xwf5wz8r67sj5

Signature: IJ5AyA/s7laKapHX1Ml1XPn37QpiER/5ahQvDbYefd4FLF4Owi48Jvr23VeAG/2JZ3Yt/mHndSJjvAy9WFq1uxI=

The only drawback is that only people with a wallet that is capable of using Bech32 addresses can verify it. So you should be able to verify that on your Electrum but not on the websites that do verifications. It is not possible to verify the Segwit addresses starting with 3 at all because of the way they are encapsulated in a multisig address.

A thumbs up to you, the message has been successfully verified.
I saw one more thing that I can't check bech32 addresses over blockchain.info's explorer?! It says "Unrecognized search pattern."
Can you guide me more on that? I mean, any explorers that support bech32 addresses to show balance and transactions?
Things are getting easier for me with SegWit, I hope that less fee and quick confirms will be back in my life.  :)

I've switched to using the btc.com explorer it will show balances and all the normal stuff for bech32 addresses.

https://btc.com/0daf4879f56234f39fbf9cf825e38458f75f4a22f5d2289d0dda9af78aa8df8f

That's an example of a recent tx of mine where I paid a fee of 0.00007910 on a virtual transactions size of 113 bytes. It adds up to a reasonable saving.

DO NOT GIVE YOUR PRIVATE KEYS TO ANY WEBSITE!  THAT'S LIKE THE COMBINATION TO YOUR SAFE!

That's super cheap. Is it limited to certain transactions or it's for all types of transactions?
What's your average fee/byte for each transaction? I am currently paying more than 200 sats/byte. :(


Don't worry, will keep it to me as always. Did it all in a hurry, when our campaign manager told us about the advantages of using SegWit addresses over non-SegWit and was intending to make it mandatory in a few weeks. Not their fault, it was all mine. But I will always remember your advice, thanks. :)

That would likely only muddy the waters further, as that's a thread about Lightning, while the confusion here lies with SegWit.  While people tend to refer to them in the same breath whilst talking about improvements, they are very separate things.
  


Reading all the BIPs might be overkill, but on the other hand, I find the vast majority of clips about Bitcoin on YouTube completely unwatchable.   Anything by Andreas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc7mrR6AAto) is usually a safe bet, but again, that particular link is an older video, so I don't know if there's a more recent one that's worth checking out.  The Segregated Witness (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segregated_Witness) wiki page might be worth a shot too.

The easiest way to demonstrate that SegWit has indeed been activated is to simply look at a list of the latest blocks being produced, whether it be XBT.eu (https://www.xbt.eu/) or any other such site.  You can plainly observe that the vast majority of blocks being produced are over 1MB in size, something that would never have been possible prior to the activation of SegWit.

If anyone is still using software that doesn't support SegWit, that software won't see as plainly as you can that the blocks are larger than 1MB.  They'll still see that every block is less than 1MB because they simply ignore the data in (what should be correctly referred to as) the new "witness space" (which I assume is what they meant by "block extension").  In effect, some nodes will now read the same blocks differently to others, depending on whether they support SegWit or not.  When you send a Legacy transaction (i.e. not SegWit), all the data, including the signature data goes in the "base" 1MB space and every node can read that.  When you send a SegWit Transaction, the signature data gets to take advantage of the extra witness space, in order to fit more transactions in the base 1MB, but only SegWit-compatible nodes will recognise them.  This means we can effectively increase the blockweight in a backwards-compatible and entirely voluntary way.

Im new to segwit and my first transaction (well recieved) was from the current signature campaign, and I can confirm btc.com seems to be working fine at displaying bech32 trasactions, not sure if the ones that begin with 3 are as cheap as bech32, but Lauda's transaction was 220 Satoshis/vByte for a 22 outputs transaction. There is still one person that didn't switch to segwit. Im not sure how the fee would get calculated for a transaction that is sent to a mix of bech32, nested and legacy addresses:

https://btc.com/4063544c31e9258a2a7eb37090bbc81f090259abaabb3f4e3fe79b25e317db59

To get the the reduced fee all outputs must be segwit?

No.
The outputs (destination addresses don't matter) as long as you're sending FROM a Segwit wallet.

That was just the optimum fee at the time of that transaction. I use https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ and https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#2h to determine what fee/byte to use. Ignore the recommended fee and look at the data to see which fee level is the lowest that is getting included each time a block is found. Right now bitcoinfees.earn.com recommends 460 sat/byte but I would use 120 sat/byte and it would be confirmed quite quickly.

The saving with using Segwit is not that you can use a lower fee/byte but rather in the way the size of the transaction is calculated. Using that same transaction as an example you can see the btc.com block explorer shows a 'rawtx' size of 194 bytes and a 'virtual size' of 112 bytes. The fee is calculated on the virtual size. The implementation of Segwit replaced the 1Mb block size limit with a 4000 weighted unit block size limit. All data in a transaction is weighted at 4 per byte except witness data which is weighted at 1 per byte. So when you use a Segwit transaction you are receiving a weighting discount on the input scripts. The more inputs to a transaction the more discount. The outputs have no effect.

Edit: Something interesting that demonstrates the point just happened on the blockchain. A block just went through with a size of 1,588,136 which is unusually large.
https://btc.com/00000000000000000033a9758f74dd1c027e96d5be10f2e68dbda63feb9c7a94

Looking at what was in the block there are a large number of transaction like this one, all with 300 Segwit inputs and all going to the same output address.

https://btc.com/1a1997b7a16c3ea2f1dc21b95a8f838efb1146ddab3b4140ae69d7957c69557e

The transaction has a 'rawtx' of 51,497 bytes but a virtual size of only 27,309 bytes giving a saving of 47% to whoever was sending these. Looks like it is HitBTC.

How is it even possible to check what fee/byte transactions are being taken in each block?
I only try to check that what fee level has the least transactions waiting to be confirmed, and send 10 - 15 sats/byte lesser than that amount (as it automatically increases after compression of the transaction). Still, sometimes need to wait longer as it's all mainly about luck nowadays.  :-\



But how will I be able to put more inputs if I have everything stored on a single address?
Does it mean that I will be getting no such "discounts" that you mentioned below?



By these examples, are you trying to say that by using SegWit, I will not be getting anything like reduction in fee/byte in real, but due to it being done through a SegWit address, it will reduce the size of the transaction (which is actually the core purpose if I'm not wrong) and give it a virtual size, and that fee/byte (whatever the amount will be), will be multiplied by virtual size rather than 'rawtx'?

If you watch the bitcoinfees.earn.com site you will see when a block is found the bars for unconfirmed reduce in size. There will be a point on the price scale where that doesn't happen for prices lower, so the lowest priced bar that decreased is the point which you are looking for. I find it easier to see on the dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de site as it is the colour band that gets bitten into on each block. You can put your mouse over the band to highlight the price.

So in this picture of right now:

https://i.snag.gy/zNiPEL.jpg

The 120+ sat per byte band is regularly getting little bits taken out of it.


I'm not suggesting you can get more discount, I was just trying to explain how it works. It is the witness data for each input that is discounted. That's where the saving comes from. Using more inputs makes a larger (therefore more expensive) transaction. The penalty for using lots of inputs is much less using Segwit than it is on a legacy transaction.

Something you can use on Electrum is

View > Show Coins

and a new Coins tab appears. There you will see all your inputs listed. Electrum selects automatically which ones it will use in a transaction but here you have the advanced option to select that for yourself by using right click and spend.


Yes, that was what I was trying to say. I probably confused the issue by getting into too much technical detail.
There is also a bit of confusion caused by different block explorers and software using different terminology. Some will quote it in 'Weighted Units' rather than giving 'virtual size'. All it really means is the transactions are not really smaller but they are treated as being smaller both for fee calculation and for how much data is allowed in a block. So it is cheaper to use and increases the capacity of the network.

You should be seeing that normal transactions are 30% to 40% less bytes than they would be if you were not using Segwit.

Edit. Something else I just remembered. As you are new to Electrum go to Tools > Preferences then under Fees change Propose Replace-By-Fee to Always. Then you can always bump up the fee if you ever get a stuck transaction.

Where can I get this picture? Link please.



That's totally understandable, but then, there were few bands in the image with the exact same size.
However, as I always send 10 - 15 sats/byte less than the exact amount as needed here, how does it guarantee that it will come in that band only?



Still unclear about this. Let's take an example. I currently have nothing in that wallet, I will receive something this weekend in a fixed address (single bech32 adddress only). Does it still divide inputs to more than one even if I use a single address to send coins to just one or more than one addresses?



What exactly happens when I bump it up? Does both the transaction fee sizes, i.e.; the normal fee and the virtual fee both change in sizes?
Can you explain about some % part, as based on what percentage a transaction's weight unit is decided? Where can I find more info about that?

That was from https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#2h
It's the second graph down on the page, usually easiest to see on that one.


I'm not quite understanding your question here. Have a look at the site and watch what happens when a block is found and you should have a very good idea what a good fee level is at the moment. If not can you expand on this question a bit and I'll try and help.


When you receive that payment your wallet will have one input. Then if you haven't spent it the next time you get a payment you will then have 2 inputs and they will be listed separately on that tab. Think of it like cash, if someone gives you a 10 cent coin and then you get another and so on until you have 10, you do not have a dollar bill you have ten 10 cent coins. It doesn't matter if they are sent to the same address or a different address in the same wallet, every transaction you receive is a separate input.


There is only one fee. If you preview a transaction on Electrum it will show you a size. This is actually the virtual size as that is all you need to know about and what the fee is calculated on.
If you bump up the fee you are simply replacing the transaction with another one with a higher fee. Normally a wallet will not let you do this but with the Propose Replace-By-Fee feature, you can.


Not too sure what exactly you want to know but try this
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units

Take an example.
I see at bitcoinfees.earn.com that a fee level of 120-130 sats/byte is sufficient to get my transaction confirmed in the next few blocks (a few minutes or hours) and decide to use that fee. But when I use a Legacy address to send anything, it shows something different as fee.
Like, it shows that it is charging 0.00036 satoshis (for a 300 bytes transaction). But, after sending, I see that the fee/byte gets changed to ~135 - 140 sats/byte (may be due to compression and change in transaction size). That's why I said that I send 10 - 15 sats/byte less than what's shown sufficient at that fees website. Coming back to the question, as we are still unclear about the compression part, can you tell me that how to know what will be the exact size of transaction (after sending it and compression takes place) before we do it? Sending these much sats/byte doesn't really guarantee that my transaction will carry a fee in between the band that's shown here: https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#2h



I actually asked that on what basis is transaction's weight unit decided?
But thanks for that link, I saw that the transaction size (rawtx) basically gets divided by 4 in order to get weight units (virtual size). :)

EDIT:
While we are talking about weight units (virtual size of transactions), I would like to ask that once everything goes SegWit and it comes fully in use, are we going to pay fees only on weight units and not the actual normal fees that we are paying currently through legacy addresses?

Now I know why I didn't understand the question. That should not happen. In Electrum you can preview the transaction before sending it and it will show the precise fee, size and fee sat/byte. This will be accurate as to what is sent out on the network.



Since Segwit was activated on the network we are already all paying fees based on weighted units. A legacy transaction has every byte weighted at 4 as does a Segwit transaction with the exception of the witness data bytes which are weighted at 1.
Virtual size is simply an alternative way of displaying exactly the same thing but divided by 4 to make it look consistent with what we are used to.
Electrum's implementation is simply showing 'size' which is actually virtual size. The btc.com block explorer shows both the virtual size, the weight, and fee rate in BTC/kVb in a way that is consistent with Electrum. Some other block explorers have chosen to display it differently which can cause some confusion.

One major question here:
As it all started with me using my private key over that website thinking that I will be getting a SegWit address over my Legacy address, I would like to ask you that is there anything that could convert my Legacy Address to SegWit itself? I'm not going to use my current Legacy address any more, but just out of curiosity, is there anything like a SegWit address already related to our Legacy Address (based on its private key)? If there is something like this, how will I be able to use that SegWit address? Where will I be able to use it from?

Just to remind you:
I used the last option over segwitaddress.org that says:
"Details

Enter a WIF private key to generate its corresponding segwit address.

WIF Private Key:", I put my private key and clicked on "Show Detail".

After that, all it gave was an address starting with 3 and my private key as well as a QR Code.

Yes, you can.

With your WIF private key, convert it to a COMPRESSED public key (segwit only supports compressed public keys)

Hash the pub key with sha256

Then hash the result with RIPEMD160

Then encode it with base58 to get the P2SH-P2WPKH address

(You'll have to convert the values to hex before hashing, bitcoin works with hexadecimal values, not strings or characters)

Can you please elaborate it? It's something I'm interested in learning, so not to commit such a mistake in future.
Can you determine which wallet/website should be used for each step?
As well, what I am interested in is that, can I use this "compressed" version, i.e.; the SegWit address that's connected to my Legacy address' private key? If yes, then how and from which wallet will I be able to receive funds over that SegWit address and use them to send?

Thanks to Xynerise for answering that, I would have had to look up how to do that.


I'm not sure but I think you need a Core node to do this.


I don't understand why you would want to reuse an old private key. The P2SH-P2WPKH (3) Segwit addresses all have an underlying legacy (1) address but wouldn't using both addresses decrease security?

I'm not interested in using both the addresses but to use a SegWit address that's related to our current Legacy address!? Can it seriously decrease the security level? I didn't mean that I want to use Legacy addresses that lie under SegWit, but vice-versa.

Example:
As I used my Legacy address' private key over the site mentioned in OP, I got an address starting with 3 and website claims it to be a SegWit address. That's what I'm asking, that if I get a SegWit address using my Legacy privkey, how will I be able to use that SegWit address? Which wallet is compatible to do that?

It is generally considered good practice not to reuse addresses. I know that is unavoidable for something like a signature campaign where you receive regular payment but when you send a transaction from an address then information about it is broadcast on the network. It is not a vulnerability, just being ultra safe, but that is why most wallets and services generate new addresses as soon as one is used.


You can do this with a Core node. First import the private key and then from the console command line:

addwitnessaddress addr

where addr is the existing P2SH address.

You need to use the version of Core that you download and compile to actually use the Segwit address on Core as the code is not yet included on the precompiled one (scheduled to be in the next release 0.16.0).

I still personally would rather use a totally fresh private key and address and not reuse one.

Can you please throw some light over that bold part? I'm unsure of the issues with the current version of core and whether I should wait for the newer release of core (i.e.; 0.16)
The reason why I'm interested in that is, when we have at least one thing fixed, we can use it to sign messages to prove that we possess it. I'm aware of the fact that it breaches the code of anonymity for which bitcoin was created, but isn't it true that when we try to send all the funds in our wallet, it shows all the addresses in the list of the transaction when they are sent to one or more addresses?

Core is constantly being developed and if you go to github and download the latest commit in source code form and then compile it yourself then you have a newer version than the precompiled version (the official release if you like).
The Segwit functionality for the wallet was added in one of the commits for 0.15.0.1 but they delayed rolling into the 0.15.1 release and held it back for 0.16.0
One of the Core developers recently posted on this forum that he expects it to be released in February.


You can sign and verify a message with a bech32 address using Electrum. The Core implementation will use 3 addresses by default but also supports bech32 so should also be able to do this. I'm not sure what advantage there is in being able to sign a message from the underlying legacy address to '3' Segwit address if that is what you trying to achieve.


If a transaction contains input from more than one address then it can be concluded that the addresses are in the same wallet, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to this.

I said that for my current bech32 addresses, that if I receive coins on different (bech32) addresses and all of them are in the same wallet:
Let's say 'A' address receives 0.03 BTC
'B' address receives 0.02 BTC
'C' address receives 0.05 BTC,
And if I am interested in sending the whole 0.1 BTC to someone in a single transaction, won't these addresses A, B & C will be included in that transaction and shown in the list?

On a quick note, I would like to know that if it's possible to get SegWit addresses starting with '3' with our Legacy addresses' privkey, can't we use these privkeys to get bech32 addresses that are (maybe) connected to our Legacy addresses? Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere with the question here.

Yes, that's what I was saying. It's a privacy issue and there are ways of combatting it such as in Electrum you can create as many wallets as you want and then use each one for different purposes. Then use a service like ChipMixer to further distance yourself from the source of the coins before combining them.


I'm not 100% sure here but I think the answer is no. Before I go trying to look that up I'm still completely baffled as to what you are trying to achieve and maybe if you could explain that I might get it.

I want to know that if Legacy address' privkey has SegWit address connected with it and it can get me a SegWit address starting with '3', didn't the SegWit devs make it possible to get a bech32 address too with that privkey? Or is there anything I'm currently unaware of?

That's sort of why I'm guessing you can't. I also seem to remember when I first upgraded to Electrum 3.0.0 and created my first Segwit wallet seeing a warning somewhere that it would not be possible to import these private keys into other wallet types.

That still leaves me wondering why anyone would want to use the same private key to generate different addresses. I cannot see any application that would benefit from that and it sets alarm bells off that it could make things less secure.


Edit: I've been thinking about it and I think this explains it but people with better technical knowledge may be able to answer it more fully.

A private key creates a legacy address. The 3 Segwit address is created from the legacy address, not from the private key. They are not meant to be associated, the Segwit address is just nested in the legacy address.
Another private key creates a bech32 address and that's all as it is native and doesn't need to be nested in anything.

Let's try this again. As I've only been learning about Segwit a couple of months this took a while to work out.

A legacy addresses private key doesn't have a Segwit address associated with it. The Segwit implementation using the 3 addresses is nesting Segwit in the old legacy address. That address is not intended to be used for anything else. It was only done this way as a tempory solution to provide backward compatibility of the address format (base58).

The native implementation of Segwit using bech32 addresses does not require any other address to make it work.

The devs didn't make it possible to do what you asking because there is no reason to.