Legacy or Segwit on Ledger Nano S

[bjbear123]

Hello,

I am transferring over a small amount of BTC to my Ledger Nano S, however there is 2 options on the Ledger, Bitcoin Legacy OR Bitcoin Segwit.

Which one should I transfer funds to ??

Are both supported everywhere ? Are both just as safe ? If I choose Segwit, will I get future Forks ??

Thank you

[1715061650]

1715061650

[1715061650]

1715061650

[OmegaStarScream]

If by SegWit addresses, you're referring to the ones that start with 3 then yes, nothing to worry about. I had my funds stored in SegWit addresses on Trezor and I did receive Bitcoin Gold fork so It should be the same thing for your Ledgerwallet.

[LeGaulois]

Yesterday I tried to use a Segwit address on Ledger Nano S, then tried to send some bitcoins from an exchange for testing, the site was telling me the address is not valid. Is there a possibility that some exchanges/web wallets don't support these types of addresses?

[RGBKey]

Yesterday I tried to use a Segwit address on Ledger Nano S, then tried to send some bitcoins from an exchange for testing, the site was telling me the address is not valid. Is there a possibility that some exchanges/web wallets don't support these types of addresses?

It's possible, but strange. Segwit addresses are just pay to script hash (P2SH) addresses and have been in Bitcoin since the beginning. The exchange could be doing the wrong thing and only letting addresses start with a 1, which is not how Bitcoin addresses work.

[bob123]

Yesterday I tried to use a Segwit address on Ledger Nano S, then tried to send some bitcoins from an exchange for testing, the site was telling me the address is not valid. Is there a possibility that some exchanges/web wallets don't support these types of addresses?

Yes, quite a few exchanges (and wallet provider) aren't supporting addresses starting with a 3 yet. Will probably still take some time until its 'fully' adopted or at least used.

@OP:
You can choose whatever address type you like. Legacy is the original bitcoin address format. Segwit was implemented through a soft fork a few months ago.
Segwit transactions are smaller in size, and therefore cheaper when spending from. You are free to choose which you want to use.

[Iranus]

Pros of sending to a SegWit address:

-Significantly lower fees than legacy addresses
-Possibility of LN in the future
-Same chain as legacy (they're both BTC addresses)

Cons:

-There's no standard for signing messages with SegWit addresses, so legacy might be better for verification
-SegWit wallet implementations could potentially be buggy since they're relatively new and not implemented on some major services

[RGBKey]

-SegWit wallet implementations could potentially be buggy since they're relatively new and not implemented on some major services

I doubt any reputable wallet provider would allow a buggy segwit release. I don't think that's an issue. That's why it's taking so long for some services to implement it, is because they're making sure they do it right.

[HCP]

Yes, quite a few exchanges (and wallet provider) aren't supporting addresses starting with a 3 yet. Will probably still take some time until its 'fully' adopted or at least used.

Huh?? I haven't seen one wallet or exchange that doesn't support "3" addresses... a "3"-type SegWit address is, for all intents and purposes, just a "P2SH" address... P2SH addresses have been around since the very early days of Bitcoin. ANY Bitcoin wallet should be able to send to a "3" address. For instance, "3" addresses are also used by "legacy" MultiSig wallets.

If the exchange does NOT support sending to a "3" address, then the exchange is BROKEN and should NOT be used.

What a lot of exchanges and wallets are NOT supporting is SegWit iteself... they are not using SegWit addresses... and cannot send to SegWit "native" addreses (aka bech32 aka "bc1")... The only wallet I know that supports "bc1" addresses is Electrum.

Just be aware, that if you chose to put your coins on a SegWit address... any future Bitcoin Fork that doesn't support SegWit will likely make it difficult to claim your coins... also, there is currently no standard for "signing" messages from SegWit addresses which can make participating in ICOs and AirDrops difficult (if you're into that sort of thing)

[bjbear123]

Thank you for all your help, I have decided to keep with Bitcoin Legacy as I just was quoted £1 more on fees transferring out of a Segwit address haha !!

I was thinking there would be a huge reduction in fees with segwit but that does not look to be the case,

Thank you all for you help

[Iranus]

I just was quoted £1 more on fees transferring out of a Segwit address haha !!

This is not how fees work.  You can send any fee or no fee, it's just that lower ones may not get confirmed depending on the network conditions.

You will pay less fees when using SegWit on a regular basis because the witness data is treated as external, thus making the transaction appear somewhat smaller.

Read more about this here.

[LeGaulois]

Thanks guys.

I was sure that it couldn't be a problem so I was quite surprised and in doubt thinking, i did something wrong (couldn't think about something).
I will test again to see but look like better for me to not use it for several reasons (at least for now)

[bit247]

segwit is fast and transaction fees are lower

[SomeGuyInOz]

segwit is fast and transaction fees are lower

Sending using a segwit address is no faster (nor slower) than using a legacy address.  It should be a little cheaper, though.  That said, at the time of writing this reply you could get away with sending BTC for under 10c if you wanted to, even using a legacy address.  The mempool is emptying.

[cavender999]

Please help me!

I have successfully purchased Nano coins on Binance and cannot withdraw them to my ledger wallet through myetherwallet. I have been able to transfer other coins but with Nano I keep on getting the error 'Withdraw Access Error'.

Any help would be grately appreciated. 

[bob123]

Please help me!

I have successfully purchased Nano coins on Binance and cannot withdraw them to my ledger wallet through myetherwallet. I have been able to transfer other coins but with Nano I keep on getting the error 'Withdraw Access Error'.

The nano coins from binance have nothing to do with the ledger nano s.

Ledger = Manufacturer of the Nano S
Nano S = Hardware wallet from ledger [1]

Nano (cryptocurrency; available on binance) = DAG based crypto. Was named 'Raiblocks' earlier. [2]

Both are independend from another. Nano also isn't an ERC20 token.
As far as i know ledger currently is building an application to store nano on their nano s.

[1] https://www.ledgerwallet.com/products/ledger-nano-s
[2] https://nano.org/en

[ony2k]

Good choice on keeping legacy BTC as legacy and not transferring to segwit on the Nano S. Though Ledger has a how to on it, BTC segwit may get knocked out of the box insofar as future forks are concerned. The old cliche (rule's of life) simply apply, and they certainly do apply within a technology full of potential gotcha complexity(s). The faster segwit speed and lower fees are not that great a factor if not transacting in the millions, as well. Pay a little more, sleep nights. The rules, you might ask? If it doesn't need fixing, DON'T FIX IT and keep it simple stupid. 

[HCP]

Good choice on keeping legacy BTC as legacy and not transferring to segwit on the Nano S. Though Ledger has a how to on it, BTC segwit may get knocked out of the box insofar as future forks are concerned. The old cliche (rule's of life) simply apply, and they certainly do apply within a technology full of potential gotcha complexity(s). The faster segwit speed and lower fees are not that great a factor if not transacting in the millions, as well. Pay a little more, sleep nights. The rules, you might ask? If it doesn't need fixing, DON'T FIX IT and keep it simple stupid. 

There is no such thing as "faster segwit speed"... SegWit transactions are not prioritised over Legacy transactions... at least, no miners that I know of do this. Also, it could be argued that NOT shifting to SegWit actually hurts the network and potentially makes fees higher for everyone.

Also, fees are actually MORE important the less you are transacting... As always, the amount of BTC being transacted has little bearing on the total fee you will pay (it's all about transaction "weight"), but the total fee paid becomes a much larger percentage of the amount being transacted the less you send. That is to say, sending 1 BTC for 0.0001 BTC in fees, is only 0.01% fee... but sending 0.001 BTC for the same 0.0001 BTC is 10% fee!!?! Being able to keep fees low makes sending smaller BTC amounts more viable.

But hey, if your priority is making a couple of bucks from whatever ScamCoin™ fork is just around the corner, by all means, leave your coins in legacy addresses... (and pay higher fees to move your coins every time you want to claim fork coins )

[RGBKey]

...If it doesn't need fixing, DON'T FIX IT and keep it simple stupid. 

But Bitcoin did need fixing. The fees were becoming outrageously high, and we needed a transaction malleability fix. Segregated Witness brought both of those.

[jerry0]

So is the choice legacy or segwit?  So if i choose segwit... could i change it back to legacy?


Or is the only way to do this basically reset my nano ledger s and choose legacy instead and thus generate a new pin and 24 word?

[bob123]

So is the choice legacy or segwit?  So if i choose segwit... could i change it back to legacy?
Or is the only way to do this basically reset my nano ledger s and choose legacy instead and thus generate a new pin and 24 word?

You can look at it as 2 different wallets. You can always switch inbetween them (Options -> Blockchains -> Bitcoin (Segwit/Legacy)).
Both addresses are derived from your 24 word seed.
If you want to move your funds from a legacy to segwit address (or vice versa) you have to make a transaction.
You can not combine funds from both 'wallets' in one transaction. If you wan't to move all of your funds form the nano s you would need 2 transaction (1 segwit + legacy).

It is advised to use SegWit for transactions being smaller in size (and therefore paying less in fees).