Campaign managers, time to use Segwit and require your posters to use it too

[Wind_FURY]

I have been doing a little research on signature campaign payments, which are always small, and I have seen that some campaign managers have been delaying payments because the fees are too high.

I believe this is a good time to start using Segwit enabled wallets to help lower the fees and to make transactions confirm faster.

Stop using Blockchain.info and start using Green Address, https://greenaddress.it/en/. It has Segwit enabled.

For Electrum users you can create a new Segwit wallet with the more accepted "3 addresses" by using the instructions below.

Generate a BIP39, 12 words seed on https://iancoleman.io/bip39/, you can also use it offline for more security.

On electrum choose, create new wallet, I already have a seed, then on "options" choose BIP39, paste the seed then click next.

On derivation path path use: m/49'/0'/0'/0

For mobile wallets, use Samourai wallet. They have a working Alpha.

[1714598794]

1714598794

[1714598794]

1714598794

[1714598794]

1714598794

[1714598794]

1714598794

[1714598794]

1714598794

[1714598794]

1714598794

[ahmedjamal1998]

 Well basically no campaign managers in his right mind would ever use a Web wallet such as Blockchain .
Using segwit is a good idea with a ledger wallet and then using it with electrum.  However the participants don’t have to have segwit addresses as well.

 As long as the sender is using a compatible address the transaction is considered Segwit And has drastically lower fees

[Rath_]

I don't understand it either. Why some people prefer their "amazing" and "unique" vanity address over SegWit address which is cheaper in use? The latest Electrum allows generation of native SegWit addresses (bech32) so why shouldn't we force campaign participants to use them? Even some exchanges started to support SegWit deposits. It's surprising that many people still don't know about SegWit.

[DarkStar_]

Perhaps lead by example. 1YAXCNpdeEBBBdzPqBqTEhT6e9czV5Y5f, your Jetwin payment address is neither nested Segwit or bech32.

I don't understand it either. Why some people prefer their "amazing" and "unique" vanity address over SegWit address which is cheaper in use? The latest Electrum allows generation of native SegWit addresses (bech32) so why shouldn't we force campaign participants to use them? Even some exchanges started to support SegWit deposits. It's surprising that many people still don't know about SegWit.

Because not everyone wants to use Electrum. Some might prefer to keep their funds on a phone, some might have a cold storage address that they don't want to regenerate so that it's bech32, and some might want to sell off their Bitcoin once they get paid directly. There's no point requiring bech32. Also, I believe all exchanges support SegWit addresses, given that the nested version is backwards compatible and all exchanges should support multisig, and bech32 *should* work unless the exchange has some really weird custom wallet. In the ChipMixer campaign I manage, out of over 50 users, only one is getting payments to bech32.

It's also possible to generate "amazing and unique" bech32 vanity addresses (user nullius has 3NULL3ZCUXr7RDLxXeLPDMZDZYxuaYkCnG as a nested SegWit address and bc1qcash96s5jqppzsp8hy8swkggf7f6agex98an7h as a bech32 vanity.

[Wind_FURY]

Perhaps lead by example. 1YAXCNpdeEBBBdzPqBqTEhT6e9czV5Y5f, your Jetwin payment address is neither nested Segwit or bech32.

Yes, I already made a request to notaek to change my address days ago.

Well basically no campaign managers in his right mind would ever use a Web wallet such as Blockchain .

Hahaha. I was also talking to the participants. I believe many of them use Blockchain.info for convenience. Please help me convince them to use Green Address, https://greenaddress.it/en/.

Using segwit is a good idea with a ledger wallet and then using it with electrum.  However the participants don’t have to have segwit addresses as well.

 As long as the sender is using a compatible address the transaction is considered Segwit And has drastically lower fees

I am happy that you understand the situation well. I hope the others will be as easy to talk to.

[Catmony]

   
As long as the sender is using a compatible address the transaction is considered Segwit And has drastically lower fees

Are you sure about this? From what i know both sending and receiving addresses have to be segwit compatible to be considered as segwit transaction with lower size + lower fee. 

[Light]

Are you sure about this? From what i know both sending and receiving addresses have to be segwit compatible to be considered as segwit transaction with lower size + lower fee. 

I quote this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7l9tda/day_2_i_will_repost_this_guide_daily_until/

A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.

A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.

A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction.

Basically, it counts as a SegWit transaction if the sending address is a SegWit address (either P2SH-P2WPKH or bech32).

[Wind_FURY]

Thanks for that link, Light. That only shows that campaign managers themselves should start using Segwit enabled wallets to lower their fees and to make their transactions hopefully confirm faster.

It also encourages more use of the technology as more and more campaign managers follow.

[aTriz]

I prefer to just use vanity addresses generated by myself as the escrow address for campaigns.

Out of all the campaigns I've managed, only 1 person has used a segwit address...

Are you sure about this? From what i know both sending and receiving addresses have to be segwit compatible to be considered as segwit transaction with lower size + lower fee. 

I quote this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7l9tda/day_2_i_will_repost_this_guide_daily_until/

A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.

A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.

A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction.

Basically, it counts as a SegWit transaction if the sending address is a SegWit address (either P2SH-P2WPKH or bech32).

This is useful, thanks.

[Panthers52]

I believe this is a good time to start using Segwit enabled wallets [...] to make transactions confirm faster.

Transactions will actually not confirm any faster with SegWit. The signature portion of transactions will be discounted by 75%, however all else being equal, a SW transaction with the same discounted fee rate will confirm in the same amount of time a transaction composed with non-SW inputs with the same discounted fee rate.

It is also actually not possible to tell if an address is a SW address until it spends funds, so it would not be possible to force users to use SW addresses.

[avikz]

I have been doing a little research on signature campaign payments, which are always small, and I have seen that some campaign managers have been delaying payments because the fees are too high.

I believe this is a good time to start using Segwit enabled wallets to help lower the fees and to make transactions confirm faster.

Stop using Blockchain.info and start using Green Address, https://greenaddress.it/en/. It has Segwit enabled.

For Electrum users you can create a new Segwit wallet with the more accepted "3 addresses" by using the instructions below.

Generate a BIP39, 12 words seed on https://iancoleman.io/bip39/, you can also use it offline for more security.

On electrum choose, create new wallet, I already have a seed, then on "options" choose BIP39, paste the seed then click next.

On derivation path path use: m/49'/0'/0'/0

For mobile wallets, use Samourai wallet. They have a working Alpha.

I too believe the same and already started using an segwit enabled Electrum wallet. I have already generated an address which starts with "bc1". However, whenever I am trying to use my coinbase wallet to send funds to that segwit enabled wallet, it is not recognizing the segwit address as a valid one. So coinbase is not allowing me to send funds to that address. Any solution can you provide? Needless to say, but I am facing the same issue blockchain wallet as well. 

[Granslam]

Can i ask ? This segwit will caused bitcoin fall down? Thanks.

[Lauda]

It is also actually not possible to tell if an address is a SW address until it spends funds, so it would not be possible to force users to use SW addresses.

Wrong. You can force users to use bech32, which is native SW. Failed scammer posting nonsense from busted alt.
@OP: Yes. I'm slowly pushing for that in my campaigns. The problem is that what people here consider *experienced managers*, are often people who are actually very inexperienced when it comes to Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

It is also actually not possible to tell if an address is a SW address until it spends funds, so it would not be possible to force users to use SW addresses.

Wrong. You can force users to use bech32, which is native SW. Failed scammer posting nonsense from busted alt.
@OP: Yes. I'm slowly pushing for that in my campaigns. The problem is that what people here consider *experienced managers*, are often people who are actually very inexperienced when it comes to Bitcoin.

Thanks Lauda, I am happy that you are. Changes should start from within the community however small. But we should let our voices be heard and we should not allow ourselves to be bullied by the "Bitcoin oligarchy".

I prefer to just use vanity addresses generated by myself as the escrow address for campaigns.

Out of all the campaigns I've managed, only 1 person has used a segwit address...

Why not start using this, https://segwitaddress.org/.

You can also require your participants to start using Segwit addresses. Fees will be cheaper for you and for them.

[aTriz]

Why not start using this, https://segwitaddress.org/.

You can also require your participants to start using Segwit addresses. Fees will be cheaper for you and for them.

That looks super dodgy...

I'm moving to hardware wallets for holding and escrowing. Do you know if ledger or trezor accepts segwit?

I've moved to a segwit wallet as my hot wallet. Looks like fees are less, thanks.

[joniboini]

That looks super dodgy...

I'm moving to hardware wallets for holding and escrowing. Do you know if ledger or trezor accepts segwit?

I've moved to a segwit wallet as my hot wallet. Looks like fees are less, thanks.

well, according to this,  it seems like trezor supports segwit.

[aTriz]

That looks super dodgy...

I'm moving to hardware wallets for holding and escrowing. Do you know if ledger or trezor accepts segwit?

I've moved to a segwit wallet as my hot wallet. Looks like fees are less, thanks.

well, according to this,  it seems like trezor supports segwit.

Thanks. Trezor 2 was the hardware wallet i was leaning to so that's a plus.

[bL4nkcode]

That looks super dodgy...

I'm moving to hardware wallets for holding and escrowing. Do you know if ledger or trezor accepts segwit?

I've moved to a segwit wallet as my hot wallet. Looks like fees are less, thanks.

well, according to this,  it seems like trezor supports segwit.

Thanks. Trezor 2 was the hardware wallet i was leaning to so that's a plus.

Yes, I have ledger nano and it has an option to choose whether Legacy or Segwit so it does [image]. And which can be seen here too.  

[Wind_FURY]

That looks super dodgy...

I'm moving to hardware wallets for holding and escrowing. Do you know if ledger or trezor accepts segwit?

I've moved to a segwit wallet as my hot wallet. Looks like fees are less, thanks.

well, according to this,  it seems like trezor supports segwit.

Thanks. Trezor 2 was the hardware wallet i was leaning to so that's a plus.

Please do not forget to give us some feedback on how much your new Segwit supporting signature campaigns are saving you and your participants some Bitcoins from the reduced fees. Thanks.

[Lauda]

Please do not forget to give us some feedback on how much your new Segwit supporting signature campaigns are saving you and your participants some Bitcoins from the reduced fees. Thanks.

Not needed. You can calculate this yourself. Fees for SegWit TXs: size (excl. witness) + witness size/4 = total size * fee-rate. Fees for legacy TXs: size * fee-rate. For a regular 1 in, two outs transaction of ~226 bytes * 409 sat/byte =
for a transaction of 226 bytes: 0.00092434.
A SW (1 in two outs) TX would be ~180 bytes * 409/sat/bytes: 0.00073620 BTC.
The more SW inputs you have (as opposed to legacy ones), the savings are greater. Let's see what happens when consolidating.
Legacy - 20 in, 1 out: ~3004 bytes, 0.01228636 BTC (178.6$).
SW - 20 in, 1 out: ~2046 bytes, 0.00836814 BTC (121.4$).