Should I make the jump to segwit?

[taserz]

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

[1714878168]

1714878168

[1714878168]

1714878168

[1714878168]

1714878168

[taserz]

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

I show 140,000 approx txs per day. Is that what you thought it was?

More so adoption for services and exchanges and whatever else. As that is about 40% of the network is segwit.

[AdolfinWolf]

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

I show 140,000 approx txs per day. Is that what you thought it was?

More so adoption for services and exchanges and whatever else. As that is about 40% of the network is segwit.

I think almost all, if not all services by now support nested segwit (and i'm pretty sure have always done so in the past since 3.. adresses were also used as multisig.)

As for BC1, well, there are some services which have problems detecting these payments, (I'm looking at you G2A, & some random mixers), but overall it hasn't really been a problem for me personally.
You could always safely switch to use nested segwit first and make the jump to native later.

[taserz]

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

I show 140,000 approx txs per day. Is that what you thought it was?

More so adoption for services and exchanges and whatever else. As that is about 40% of the network is segwit.

I think almost all, if not all services by now support nested segwit (and i'm pretty sure have always done so in the past since 3.. adresses were also used as multisig.)

As for BC1, well, there are some services which have problems detecting these payments, (I'm looking at you G2A, & some random mixers), but overall it hasn't really been a problem for me personally.
You could always safely switch to use nested segwit first and make the jump to native later.

Now, what about just waiting it out for lightning to be the holy grail?

[o_e_l_e_o]

I moved away from legacy a long time ago, but I've recently started moving away from nested SegWit to native SegWit. I haven't used a service that doesn't recognize native SegWit in quite some time, and I figure that if I do need to in the future, it is trivial to create a nested SegWit address to receive the coins and then re-route them to my a native SegWit address.

SegWit adoption does seem to have "got stuck" around the 40-45% mark, but I don't see why you would want to continue to pay higher fees. If you are really worried about services not recognizing native SegWit, just switch to nested SegWit for full compatibility and still some reduction (but less than with native SegWit) in fees.

[AdolfinWolf]

I moved away from legacy a long time ago, but I've recently started moving away from nested SegWit to native SegWit. I haven't used a service that doesn't recognize native SegWit in quite some time, and I figure that if I do need to in the future, it is trivial to create a nested SegWit address to receive the coins and then re-route them to my a native SegWit address.

SegWit adoption does seem to have "got stuck" around the 40-45% mark

https://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-segwit-adoption/

based on this, it seems to be tending in the 30s range.
maybe you have a different chart.

https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments/segwit
Shows 43% of total transactions being segwit..

And so does https://segwit.space

[o_e_l_e_o]

Yeah, I generally go off the https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments/segwit graph. It shows a 7 day rolling average by default, so gives a more accurate trend. If you change it to a 50-day or 200-day average, for example, you can see SegWit adoption is averaging out at 42%. If you change it to 1-day, it looks much more like the charts.woobull.com graph you linked, with some days in the 20s and others in the 50s. I wonder what is causing such a large swing?

[taserz]

Okay now I never heard of nested segwit. I mainly used bitcoin-qt and a ledger with electrum or ledger live.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Okay now I never heard of nested segwit. I mainly used bitcoin-qt and a ledger with electrum or ledger live.

So put very simply, there are 3 different types of bitcoin address:

Legacy addresses, which start with "1". These are also known as Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash or P2PKH.
Nested SegWit addresses, which start with "3". These are also known as Pay-to-Script-Hash or P2SH. (Note that while all nested SegWit addresses start with "3", not all addresses which start with "3" are nested SegWit, but you probably don't need to worry about this.)
Native SegWit addresses, which start with "bc1". There are also known as bech32.

If you were to create a new wallet with Electrum using your Ledger device, for example, you will be given these 3 options which I have listed above. Nested SegWit saves you some money on fees, and maintains full compatibility with all online bitcoin services. Native SegWit will save you more money on fees, but some services don't accept or recognize native SegWit yet: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption.

[taserz]

Okay now I never heard of nested segwit. I mainly used bitcoin-qt and a ledger with electrum or ledger live.

So put very simply, there are 3 different types of bitcoin address:

Legacy addresses, which start with "1". These are also known as Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash or P2PKH.
Nested SegWit addresses, which start with "3". These are also known as Pay-to-Script-Hash or P2SH. (Note that while all nested SegWit addresses start with "3", not all addresses which start with "3" are nested SegWit, but you probably don't need to worry about this.)
Native SegWit addresses, which start with "bc1". There are also known as bech32.

If you were to create a new wallet with Electrum using your Ledger device, for example, you will be given these 3 options which I have listed above. Nested SegWit saves you some money on fees, and maintains full compatibility with all online bitcoin services. Native SegWit will save you more money on fees, but some services don't accept or recognize native SegWit yet: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption.

So nested segwite sounds like the way to go then since it is backwards compatible.

Aren't some wallets with a "3" multisig I remember the few multisig transactions I have done they always used a 3.

[o_e_l_e_o]

So nested segwite sounds like the way to go then since it is backwards compatible.

Probably, if you use a lot of online services. It's not that native SegWit isn't backwards compatible per se, just that some services don't support it yet.

Aren't some wallets with a "3" multisig I remember the few multisig transactions I have done they always used a 3.

Correct. All Pay-to-Script-Hash addresses start with 3. That script may be nested SegWit, may be multisig, or may be something totally different.

[taserz]

So nested segwite sounds like the way to go then since it is backwards compatible.

Probably, if you use a lot of online services. It's not that native SegWit isn't backwards compatible per se, just that some services don't support it yet.

Aren't some wallets with a "3" multisig I remember the few multisig transactions I have done they always used a 3.

Correct. All Pay-to-Script-Hash addresses start with 3. That script may be nested SegWit, may be multisig, or may be something totally different.

How much will I save on fees really though that's my question. I get paid out from slushpool every .02 and my list of coins in electrum is really long so I figure big transactions of moving lots of coins I could pay less fees.

Also, thank you!

[AndreyVen]

I'd suggest you use legacy addresses for long term storage and mind to short term use, go with segwit.

[taserz]

How much will I save on fees really though that's my question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

Was talking % wise on high input trans.

[HCP]

How much will I save on fees really though that's my question. I get paid out from slushpool every .02 and my list of coins in electrum is really long so I figure big transactions of moving lots of coins I could pay less fees.

The answer is... it depends.

The two main factors will be how many UTXOs do you have? (that is to say, in Electrum, how many individual entries are on the "coins" tab?)... and what the fee "rates" are like when you create a transaction.

In terms of %, the numbers often quoted for fee reduction are:

Legacy (aka P2PKH) transaction: 226 bytes
Nested SegWit (aka P2SH-P2WPKH) tx: 168 bytes =~ 26% saving
Native SegWit (aka P2WPKH aka bc1) tx: 141 bytes =~ 38% saving

However, those values are for your "typical" 1 input, 2 output type transactions. Using something like the coinb.in/#fees calculator you can mess around with different values and we can see:
100 "legacy" inputs + 2 outputs = Chargable Transaction Size: 14874 bytes
100 "Nested SegWit" inputs + 2 outputs = Chargable Transaction Size: 10076 bytes

A difference of ~32%... which would equate to quite a substantial amount of BTC in times like this when BTC is pumping and "recommended" fees start pushing the 100+ sats/vByte mark! Although, you'd probably be advised to wait until the network isn't quite as busy and aim for that sweet sweet 1 sat/vByte fee rate

One other thing to consider... is it possible to increase the slushpool minimum payout level so that you generate less UTXOs in the first place?

[HCP]

What about 1 input, 1 output?

The size of an "Output" is relatively small compared to inputs.  That coinb.in calculator fixes it to 34 bytes per "legacy" output and 32 bytes per "P2SH" output. So, each output doesn't affect the overall transaction size nearly as much as an input does.

Rough calculations suggest the savings actually increases slightly to about 28% for Nested and around 42% for native (if 1 input+1 output).

Forgot to mention in last post, that by "size" of a transaction I mean "virtual size". A good explanation of virtual size and "weight" and how it affects fee rate calculations.

If you would stop trolling, you would know the question was savings on fees between nested and native segwit, not legacy.

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the OP... and a little less time finding youtube videos of crickets

[taserz]

How much will I save on fees really though that's my question. I get paid out from slushpool every .02 and my list of coins in electrum is really long so I figure big transactions of moving lots of coins I could pay less fees.

The answer is... it depends.

The two main factors will be how many UTXOs do you have? (that is to say, in Electrum, how many individual entries are on the "coins" tab?)... and what the fee "rates" are like when you create a transaction.

One other thing to consider... is it possible to increase the slushpool minimum payout level so that you generate less UTXOs in the first place?

Yeah I just set the payout to .05 to have less UTXOs

As for how many UTXOs I have in my mining wallet there are hundreds maybe even close to a thousand at one point but I did consolidate the coins at one point a few months back when fees were lower.

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the OP... and a little less time finding youtube videos of crickets

HCP is correct XD

[taserz]

How much will I save on fees really though that's my question. I get paid out from slushpool every .02 and my list of coins in electrum is really long so I figure big transactions of moving lots of coins I could pay less fees.

The answer is... it depends.

The two main factors will be how many UTXOs do you have? (that is to say, in Electrum, how many individual entries are on the "coins" tab?)... and what the fee "rates" are like when you create a transaction.

One other thing to consider... is it possible to increase the slushpool minimum payout level so that you generate less UTXOs in the first place?

Yeah I just set the payout to .05 to have less UTXOs

As for how many UTXOs I have in my mining wallet there are hundreds maybe even close to a thousand at one point but I did consolidate the coins at one point a few months back when fees were lower.

Has it been long enough where I can safely move all my coins from legacy to segwit wallets to save on fees or is the adoption not as widespread as I think it now is?

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the OP... and a little less time finding youtube videos of crickets

HCP is correct XD

I think my best course of action is to increase my min payout from slushpool. The other thing I could do is have my newly mined coins go to a nested segwit wallet. If memory is correct lighting uses nested segwit so for me to get the benefit of taking the least amount of fees I would have to convert legacy to nested segwit at some point regardless and I should wait for transactions to decrease. Electrum was trying to make me pay close to $200 moving a little over a grand out of one of my wallets today and I was like hellll no and used a wallet that had me pay like $15 and I was content with that... Which is sad in itself because back in the early days I remember paying a fraction of a penny if that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

As for how many UTXOs I have in my mining wallet there are hundreds maybe even close to a thousand at one point

A thousand UTXOs is ridiculous. There are three things you can do here to reduce your fees:

1) Switch to SegWit, as discussed above
2) Increase your minimum payout level further. Increasing to 0.05 if a good first step, but if you are still sitting with hundreds of UTXOs, then obviously you aren't spending the coins that quickly, and therefore don't need them to be sent to you that frequently. Sounds like you could quite easily increase to 0.1 or 0.2 and not be left desperately waiting for a payout.
3) Consolidate your inputs. Now is a bad time to do so, as you can see from how full the mempool is: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,2d. It may take days, weeks, or even months, to settle down again. Keep an eye on the graph, and once we get back to the range of 1-2 sat/byte transactions confirming within 24 hours, consolidate to 1 UTXO.

Electrum was trying to make me pay close to $200 moving a little over a grand out of one of my wallets today and I was like hellll no and used a wallet that had me pay like $15 and I was content with that

Electrum will let you pay anything you want to pay. Go to Tools -> Preferences and check the box "Edit fees manually".

[bob123]

edit:

now in a fee war, the cost of a tx increases, so I don't see how you can claim it a 'savings'.

With segwit you pay less fees than with a legacy transactions.

Therefore you save on fees with segwit compared to legacy. How can that be misunderstood? 

It doesn't matter whether the fees are at 1 sat/B or 1000 sat/B. A X% decreased fee with segwit will always lead to a cheaper fee with segwit -> save on fees.