Is the encoding of bc1 adresses the same as 1../ 3.. adresses?

[AdolfinWolf]

As title states, is the checksum for bc1 adresses the same as for 1.. / 3.. adresses? It seems that it isn't supported by sites like these

How can i verify myself manually if a bc1 adress is valid? Is it actually any different?

[1715362203]

1715362203

[1715362203]

1715362203

[1715362203]

1715362203

[1715362203]

1715362203

[1715362203]

1715362203

[jackg]

Take a look at this thread.

Specifically:

I haven't seen one, but if you want I'd try to contribute to one on GitHub or somewhere. I like the idea, even though I know vanity addresses pose some security problems and they're not incorporated into HD backups, I still think it'd be really cool. Maybe here would be a good place to start?

There's a (checksum) section on the contents table.

[achow101]

As title states, is the checksum for bc1 adresses the same as for 1.. / 3.. adresses? It seems that it isn't supported by sites like these

They are not the same. In fact, bc1 addresses use a completely new encoding scheme known as bech32. This is specified in BIP 173[/quote] and designed specifically for Segwit. Bech32 addresses and Base58 addresses are completely incompatible with each other.

How can i verify myself manually if a bc1 adress is valid?

Not really.

Is it actually any different?

Yes, they are very different. Instead of a checksum based on the hash of the data, it is a BCH-like error correcting code. This lets it both detect errors and tell you where they are, as well as correcting some of them (if there are fewer errors than a certain threshold).