Why explorers have problems with segwit address?

[seoincorporation]

What's the problem with segwit?

As we can see on the next transaction, the segwit address don't have a link or aren't even posted:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/7ace1f5fa549df23c09f791933d82f513d5afbce07d7caf2b69ec047d45f8ab6
https://blockexplorer.com/tx/7ace1f5fa549df23c09f791933d82f513d5afbce07d7caf2b69ec047d45f8ab6
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/7ace1f5fa549df23c09f791933d82f513d5afbce07d7caf2b69ec047d45f8ab6

In theory segwit is compatible with bitcoin core, so, why the explorers don't give info about them?

[pooya87]

the reason is because they have to change their code so that it can understand Bec32 addresses and passes them as valid addresses and look for their transaction outputs, balance,... but they have not done this change. nobody can tell you why they haven't done it already though!
for now you can use other explorers such as btc.com for Bech32 addresses.

[mdayonliner]

~

This means you can not trace them?

[aleksej996]

~

This means you can not trace them?

You can trace them of course, like any other Bitcoin transaction. It is just that most block explorers don't show much info about them.
The network still has to know where those funds are, so they are still part of the public blockchain.

[Quickseller]

the reason is because they have to change their code so that it can understand Bec32 addresses and passes them as valid addresses and look for their transaction outputs, balance,... but they have not done this change. nobody can tell you why they haven't done it already though!
for now you can use other explorers such as btc.com for Bech32 addresses.

This is probably because bech32 addresses are not very widely used. AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

[ranochigo]

the reason is because they have to change their code so that it can understand Bec32 addresses and passes them as valid addresses and look for their transaction outputs, balance,... but they have not done this change. nobody can tell you why they haven't done it already though!
for now you can use other explorers such as btc.com for Bech32 addresses.

This is probably because bech32 addresses are not very widely used. AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

Bitcoin Core supports Bech32 since 0.16.0. 0.16.3 is also the version that users are supposed to update to.

Most exchange/services don't support bech32 because of the problem with backward compatibility since certain wallets don't recognise bech32 addresses. Blockchain.info is the biggest blockexplorer out there and they don't support indexing of bc1 outputs yet (they do display), while others do display and index bc1 outputs.

[Samarkand]

...
AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

This is completely wrong.

A few wallets that support bech32:
Bitcoin Core, Electrum, GreenAddress, Breadwallet, Samouraiwallet

A few exchanges that support bech32:
Coinbase/Coinbase Pro, Flyp.me, Bitcoin.de
(I concede that many of the big exchanges like Bitfinex or Bitstamp still don´t support Bech32)

A few gambling sites that support bech32:
Bustabit, YoloDICE, Crypto-Games...

[seoincorporation]

...so they are still part of the public blockchain.

Yes, they are part from the blockchain, and for sure explorers will have to upgrade their platforms to give information about the,

Most likely they're too lazy to add Bech32 support unless many people request for it or have plan to commercialize their API.

And this feels weird, maybe explorers think that was just a inoffensive soft fork and now it feels like an invasion to the main chain. So lets hope block explorers upgrade their engines.

[Theb]

Even if popular block explorers don't support them other explorers are fully compatible with segwit addresses and this shouldn't be a problem at all because there are other alternatives existing out there that supports segwit addresses and their transactions and one of them is btc.com. Unlike segwit addresses being unclickable on the transaction you have given as example, the explorer of btc.com does show it just like how blockchain.com does it for legacy addresses.

To show you the difference here is the link in btc.com of the same tx id you have posted:
https://btc.com/7ace1f5fa549df23c09f791933d82f513d5afbce07d7caf2b69ec047d45f8ab6

[piotr_n]

blockchair.com also supports bech32

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/7ace1f5fa549df23c09f791933d82f513d5afbce07d7caf2b69ec047d45f8ab6

[Thirdspace]

As we can see on the next transaction, the segwit address don't have a link or aren't even posted:
~
In theory segwit is compatible with bitcoin core, so, why the exchangers don't give info about them?

you meant to say... "why the explorers don't give..."?
it's because they haven't changed their codes for parsing and processing blockchain data
they extracted then indexed data from blockchain for easy searching and viewing
because they haven't updated their indexing codes they missed indexing bech32 addresses

[seoincorporation]

As we can see on the next transaction, the segwit address don't have a link or aren't even posted:
~
In theory segwit is compatible with bitcoin core, so, why the exchangers don't give info about them?

you meant to say... "why the explorers don't give..."?
it's because they haven't changed their codes for parsing and processing blockchain data
they extracted then indexed data from blockchain for easy searching and viewing
because they haven't updated their indexing codes they missed indexing bech32 addresses

You are right, i was talking about explorers, not about exchangers.

And thanks to user piotr_n and Theb for the recommendation, looks like btc.com and blockchair.com are the right explorers to go when we are talking about segwit transactions. They give the info i was looking for.

[pooya87]

the reason is because they have to change their code so that it can understand Bec32 addresses and passes them as valid addresses and look for their transaction outputs, balance,... but they have not done this change. nobody can tell you why they haven't done it already though!
for now you can use other explorers such as btc.com for Bech32 addresses.

This is probably because bech32 addresses are not very widely used. AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

i seriously doubt that that is the reason. as others already pointed out the usage is a lot more than what you think but even if it wasn't that shouldn't be the reason for not supporting Bech32 addresses. their platform already recognizes the addresses and decodes the output script into a correct format. heck it even has a bech32_encoder that it can encode the <OP_0> hash160 into a bech32 address, otherwise it would have shown it as a red text saying "unable to decode" just like how they  are showing OP_Return outputs.

[jackg]

This is probably because bech32 addresses are not very widely used. AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

i seriously doubt that that is the reason. as others already pointed out the usage is a lot more than what you think but even if it wasn't that shouldn't be the reason for not supporting Bech32 addresses. their platform already recognizes the addresses and decodes the output script into a correct format. heck it even has a bech32_encoder that it can encode the <OP_0> hash160 into a bech32 address, otherwise it would have shown it as a red text saying "unable to decode" just like how they  are showing OP_Return outputs.

Sorry to bump this, however, it is odd they haven't configured them yet. Surely the longer they leave it the more time it'll take to go back and change it later?
And it's not like bech32 are going away any time soon either...

[pooya87]

This is probably because bech32 addresses are not very widely used. AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

i seriously doubt that that is the reason. as others already pointed out the usage is a lot more than what you think but even if it wasn't that shouldn't be the reason for not supporting Bech32 addresses. their platform already recognizes the addresses and decodes the output script into a correct format. heck it even has a bech32_encoder that it can encode the <OP_0> hash160 into a bech32 address, otherwise it would have shown it as a red text saying "unable to decode" just like how they  are showing OP_Return outputs.

Sorry to bump this, however, it is odd they haven't configured them yet. Surely the longer they leave it the more time it'll take to go back and change it later?
And it's not like bech32 are going away any time soon either...

as far as the code is concerned it is one change and it doesn't matter when they do it, it will be the same amount of time.
as far as their database is concerned you may be right since indexing is involved as a block explorer. but i may be wrong since as i said their system already understands these types of addresses and it understands the new SegWit transaction format with witnesses.

anyways, who cares. we should seriously stop using blockchain.info they haven't even upgraded to patch the recent vulnerability. somebody exploited this on TestNet and they easily considered that block as valid and have it on their block explorer!