What address type should I choose? Segwit?

[wsxdrfv]

At many hardware (ledger nano), window application wallet (electrum), it requires choosing standard/segwit address type.

What should I choose?

Regardless of what I chosen, are there no compatibility issue between them now and future?

[1714920376]

1714920376

[1714920376]

1714920376

[1714920376]

1714920376

[1714920376]

1714920376

[nc50lc]

For the benefit of "lighter" transactions, overall cheaper fees and old-wallets/services compatibility,
Choose SegWit that starts with "3" (nested Segwit in a P2SH).

Regardless of what I chosen, are there no compatibility issue between them now and future?

For now, native SegWit "bc1" (bech32 P2WPKH) SegWit addresses aren't supported by some exchanges and online wallet services.
Some of those are not accepting bc1 addresses for withdrawals.

[ABCbits]

There are 3 types of address :
1. Standard/Legacy address (starts with 1)
 * Have highest transaction size/fee
 * Still have Transaction malleability
 * Compatible with all wallet
2. P2SH SegWit (starts with 3)
 * Have lower transaction size/fee
 * Don't have Transaction malleability
 * Compatible with all wallet, because it's backward compatible
3. Bech32/Native SegWit (starts with bc1)
 * Have lowest transaction size/fee
 * Don't have Transaction malleability
 * Only compatible with wallet which support SegWit

TLDR:
1. Choose Bech32/Native SegWit address if you use service which support it.
2. Choose P2SH SegWit address if you use service which don't support it. This is best option for majority users.
3. Only choose Standard/Legacy address if your wallet don't offer P2SH SegWit address and you use service which don't support SegWit.

[BillCoin]

For the benefit of "lighter" transactions, overall cheaper fees and old-wallets/services compatibility,
Choose SegWit that starts with "3" (nested Segwit in a P2SH).

Regardless of what I chosen, are there no compatibility issue between them now and future?

For now, native SegWit "bc1" (bech32 P2WPKH) SegWit addresses aren't supported by some exchanges and online wallet services.
Some of those are not accepting bc1 addresses for withdrawals.

Also you won't be able to find bech32 addresses( bc1) at most of the blockchain explorers, as far as I remember btc.com explorer is the only one who supports exploring bech32 addresses.
I think that we should all be starting to use bech32 addresses as forcing the wallets and explorers to start and support segwit, if we won't start adopting segwit then who elses is going to adopt?
The fight against the high fees should be coming from the users.

[bob123]

Most, if not all, service provider to make error checks on addresses a customer enters.
Unfortunately a lot of them didn't update their code yet to accept bech32 addresses (starting with bc1..).
For the best convinience you should use the nested segwit (P2SH) address (starting with 3..).
This will give you the benefits of segwit (lower fees due to a smaller weight of the transaction) almost as profitable as bech32, but with guaranteed compability to any online service provider.

Also you won't be able to find bech32 addresses( bc1) at most of the blockchain explorers, as far as I remember btc.com explorer is the only one who supports exploring bech32 addresses.

There are some more who do show/index bech32 addresses. Blockchair and blockonomics for example.

[BTCforJoe]

Another thing to consider is that SegWit addresses are very difficult, if not impossible, to sign, and even more difficult for others to verify.

If your bitcoin activity involves the necessity to prove that you own an address at any given time, then a legacy option would be your best solution.

Otherwise, go with a SegWit option, which will help improve the overall network while also contributing to lowering transaction fees.

[cellard]

Another thing to consider is that SegWit addresses are very difficult, if not impossible, to sign, and even more difficult for others to verify.

If your bitcoin activity involves the necessity to prove that you own an address at any given time, then a legacy option would be your best solution.

Otherwise, go with a SegWit option, which will help improve the overall network while also contributing to lowering transaction fees.

Aren't they working on verification of signatures as usual with Bitcoin Core? (by as usual, I mean just how you can sign messages with legacy addresses)

Personally I would use legacy addresses for cold storage, and bech32 to transact and save some money. Legacy addresses are the most timetested ones. Once coins sitting on segwit addresses have been safe for 9 years (just like legacy) then I may consider moving cold storage in bech32 as well.

[posi]

As you have been told most if crypto exchange site and wallet provider still  dont support the SegWit and the purpose of what you wanted to use the wallet for will determine if you're to go for the SegWit cause it good in terms of transaction.

[BTCforJoe]

Aren't they working on verification of signatures as usual with Bitcoin Core? (by as usual, I mean just how you can sign messages with legacy addresses)

Personally I would use legacy addresses for cold storage, and bech32 to transact and save some money. Legacy addresses are the most timetested ones. Once coins sitting on segwit addresses have been safe for 9 years (just like legacy) then I may consider moving cold storage in bech32 as well.

Oh, right, I forgot to mention the same. I believe in the utilitarian purpose of Bitcoin, so I use it as a currency quite frequently, which kind of blinded me from recognizing what should have been obvious. Thanks @cellard.

Yeah, OP, if you're looking to simply hodl, choose a legacy address; you won't have any compatibility issues or risks thereof with them. SegWit addresses aren't fully adopted yet, so there are still compatibility issues here and there, especially with the bravo charlie (bech32) addresses. You shouldn't have any problems for future compatibility, but legacy addresses have proven themselves over time.

[Theb]

I'll still go for the Legacy Address as of the moment as currently the network fees are way more cheaper compared to last 3 months ago but if the fees becomes unreasonable again then you can simply shift your payments using your segwit wallet. The desktop version of Electrum allows you to have several wallets whether it is Legacy or Segwit.

[TryNinja]

I'll still go for the Legacy Address as of the moment as currently the network fees are way more cheaper compared to last 3 months ago but if the fees becomes unreasonable again then you can simply shift your payments using your segwit wallet. The desktop version of Electrum allows you to have several wallets whether it is Legacy or Segwit.

But why would you do that?

What are the disadvantages of using a Segwit address?

[bob123]

I'll still go for the Legacy Address as of the moment as currently the network fees are way more cheaper compared to last 3 months ago but if the fees becomes unreasonable again then you can simply shift your payments using your segwit wallet. The desktop version of Electrum allows you to have several wallets whether it is Legacy or Segwit.

But why would you do that?

What are the disadvantages of using a Segwit address?

I do only know one: Claiming shit forked coins.

Although they impose quite a huge risk of losing any holdings (i.e. 'newcomers' trying to claim then without any security in mind), they are still very popular.
A few bucks seem to be worth more than security and privacy.

.. but if the fees becomes unreasonable again then you can simply shift your payments using your segwit wallet.

The reason you want to have your BTC on an segwit address is that you have them already there when fees got 'unreasonable' again.
If you still have to move them to an segwit address you do have to pay the higher fee. This fee would be even higher if you didn't consolidate your UTXO's by then.

[Theb]

I'll still go for the Legacy Address as of the moment as currently the network fees are way more cheaper compared to last 3 months ago but if the fees becomes unreasonable again then you can simply shift your payments using your segwit wallet. The desktop version of Electrum allows you to have several wallets whether it is Legacy or Segwit.

But why would you do that?

What are the disadvantages of using a Segwit address?

I do only know one: Claiming shit forked coins.

Although they impose quite a huge risk of losing any holdings (i.e. 'newcomers' trying to claim then without any security in mind), they are still very popular.
A few bucks seem to be worth more than security and privacy.

I am not saying that SegWit addresses have a disadvantage but in my current situation where I am not a big and frequent spender I don't see myself benefiting from transferring all my holdings to my segwit wallet, I do keep some BTC in my segwit wallet even before the network fees got ridiculously high.

.. but if the fees becomes unreasonable again then you can simply shift your payments using your segwit wallet.

The reason you want to have your BTC on an segwit address is that you have them already there when fees got 'unreasonable' again.
If you still have to move them to an segwit address you do have to pay the higher fee. This fee would be even higher if you didn't consolidate your UTXO's by then.

I won't have this problem as I am still keeping some BTC in my SegWit Wallet, so if ever the fees got high again, I'll be using what I stored in my SegWit Wallet.