Block Explorer thinks my address is invalid

[paduser]

Hi
Earlier this month I got a btc transaction in my electrum segwit wallet. Today none of the big block explorers can't find my address.
I can find my transaction but my address is grayed out: https://blockchain.info/tx/c9c8ae8395f7888afbe17272a4647f13588e538a4800a66db38b59d547b5d421

What happened? Did something important change?
Thanks

[ranochigo]

Blockchain.info (or most explorers for that matter) do not support bech32(bc1) addresses. While they can recognise the transaction and the transaction itself, they won't show the full address. If I'm not wrong, they do not index bc1 addresses.

If you'd like, Blockchair and blockonomics indexes bc1 address.

[paduser]

Thanks a lot.

According to the bitcoin wiki I should't use this format until further adoption. Should I crate a new wallet an move my btc over?

[ranochigo]

Thanks a lot.

According to the bitcoin wiki I should't use this format until further adoption. Should I crate a new wallet an move my btc over?

It's up to you. While bc1 is not widely adopted, the segwit enabled Bitcoin Core versions already supports it. As a result, the network does support it and several exchange and services recognises bc1 address.

You can also create an wallet that uses P2WPKH nested in P2SH address. The format is exactly like your normal P2SH address (multisig etc) but you can use segwit with it. P2SH is pretty old and everyone should recognise it as valid.

[pooya87]

Thanks a lot.

According to the bitcoin wiki I should't use this format until further adoption. Should I crate a new wallet an move my btc over?

"shouldn't" is not the right word to use here.
it is basically about when you want to receive bitcoin payments. for example if you want to cash out from a casino that casino may not support Bech32 address format so you are forced to give them another format (the legacy starting with 1 or 3).

the best solution is that if you are already using a wallet that supports this then use that anywhere that you can so that you can use the benefits of it such as a smaller transaction size hence a lower fee but also keep another wallet so that you can still receive bitcoin in case you encountered a problem like the payer didn't accept Bech32.

[buwaytress]

Thanks a lot.

According to the bitcoin wiki I should't use this format until further adoption. Should I crate a new wallet an move my btc over?

"shouldn't" is not the right word to use here.
it is basically about when you want to receive bitcoin payments. for example if you want to cash out from a casino that casino may not support Bech32 address format so you are forced to give them another format (the legacy starting with 1 or 3).

the best solution is that if you are already using a wallet that supports this then use that anywhere that you can so that you can use the benefits of it such as a smaller transaction size hence a lower fee but also keep another wallet so that you can still receive bitcoin in case you encountered a problem like the payer didn't accept Bech32.

I don't think bitcoin wiki would say that... as pooya says it's just advice that you should be prepared that not every service you use will be able to support it yet. It's just as if you've adopted a new format that's not widely supported. No different from upgrading a software for documents in a new format older versions won't be able to read.

I still maintain my original pre-Segwit wallet. But I already find I don't need it as much anymore as my SegWit address. Look forward to using only bech, I'd say 2020 is a good date to target.

[paduser]

Thanks a lot.

According to the bitcoin wiki I should't use this format until further adoption. Should I crate a new wallet an move my btc over?

"shouldn't" is not the right word to use here.
it is basically about when you want to receive bitcoin payments. for example if you want to cash out from a casino that casino may not support Bech32 address format so you are forced to give them another format (the legacy starting with 1 or 3).

the best solution is that if you are already using a wallet that supports this then use that anywhere that you can so that you can use the benefits of it such as a smaller transaction size hence a lower fee but also keep another wallet so that you can still receive bitcoin in case you encountered a problem like the payer didn't accept Bech32.

I don't think bitcoin wiki would say that... as pooya says it's just advice that you should be prepared that not every service you use will be able to support it yet. It's just as if you've adopted a new format that's not widely supported. No different from upgrading a software for documents in a new format older versions won't be able to read.

I still maintain my original pre-Segwit wallet. But I already find I don't need it as much anymore as my SegWit address. Look forward to using only bech, I'd say 2020 is a good date to target.

That what's written in the wiki

While this address format has been included in some implementations, as of December 2017, the address format is not recommended for use until more software supports the format.

source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32

But anyway I will try to use the bench32 + SegWit until I hit an insurmountable resistance. Thanks

[tarball]

https://btc.com/ supports searching bech32 format addresses.
This is the transaction.
https://btc.com/c9c8ae8395f7888afbe17272a4647f13588e538a4800a66db38b59d547b5d421
This is the receiving address.
https://btc.com/bc1qg6cl5mm9dxx47tfzttkeacp75pul9egrqefj6r

Unfortunately, btc.com takes a while to load.

[buwaytress]

That what's written in the wiki

While this address format has been included in some implementations, as of December 2017, the address format is not recommended for use until more software supports the format.

source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32

But anyway I will try to use the bench32 + SegWit until I hit an insurmountable resistance. Thanks

Ah yes, but that was 5 months ago, when it was certainly the case. And still the case if the services you use can't support it. Bech32+SegWit definitely the way to go for now. Electrum is what I'd recommend, since the client supports spending/receiving either.

https://btc.com/ supports searching bech32 format addresses.
This is the transaction.
https://btc.com/c9c8ae8395f7888afbe17272a4647f13588e538a4800a66db38b59d547b5d421
This is the receiving address.
https://btc.com/bc1qg6cl5mm9dxx47tfzttkeacp75pul9egrqefj6r

Unfortunately, btc.com takes a while to load.

Blockchair's the most suitable explorer I've found, and it keeps improving with analytics.

[tarball]

Blockchair's the most suitable explorer I've found, and it keeps improving with analytics.

Thanks for the tip, I try it out.

[TheQuin]

Ah yes, but that was 5 months ago, when it was certainly the case. And still the case if the services you use can't support it.

Which makes it all the more amazing that blockchain.info and some other block explorers still don't support it fully. Since Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0 was released they really do not have any excuse now.

Bech32+SegWit definitely the way to go for now. Electrum is what I'd recommend, since the client supports spending/receiving either.

I'd recommend that as well. Electrum makes it very easy to keep multiple wallets, so you can have a legacy address one as well for withdrawing to from the sites that don't support bech32 yet.