Invalid bitcoin adress?

[pokerchick]

Using the electrum wallet in the past everything went fine.
I could and can make and receive Transactions.

But now I want to use a trust Panel (which 100% does work for thousands of other People) but does not work for me.

I copy and paste my adress (tried with different adresses) and Always receive the error "adress invalid"

example adress: bc1q59tpwus72tp5w0g2umpnz2a67mh6853weseucz

[1714152635]

1714152635

[1714152635]

1714152635

[1714152635]

1714152635

[1714152635]

1714152635

[coupable]

example adress: bc1q59tpwus72tp5w0g2umpnz2a67mh6853weseucz

This is a segwit address. It's a valid bitcoin address butNot every platform accept it. Try to create new wallet with electrum and use the option of "legacy" instead of "segwit". You will get addresses start with "1" which are the most known and accepted widely.
I also suggest you to read about bech32 addresses (segwit) and their benefits but unfortunetly they are not recognised enough.

Btw, what is the trust panel you want to use? You may suggest the team to accept segwit as a great feature tough.

[Lucius]

pokerchick, there is a way around if you still want to use SegWit address with Electrum, but address which start with 3. This is also SegWit address, but you will have no problem with it anywhere, because it is generally accepted. The only downside is that you can't generate it directly in Electrum, you have to use a special tool, which can be a problem if you don't have clean PC (virus/malware free). Since you have Electrum, ignore step 4.

1. Go to iancoleman's BIP39 seed generator[1] (optional - download the source code and run offline for better security);
2. Select 12 words and generate a new seed;
3. SAVE THIS SEED AND DON'T LOSE IT! You can't see it again in Electrum and without the seed you can't restore your wallet in the future;
4. Download Electrum[2];
5. While creating the wallet, select: Standard Wallet -> I already have a seed -> Paste the seed from step 2.
6. Click Options -> check "BIP39 seed" -> Next.
7. In the Derivation part, paste m/49'/0'/0'/0 and click next.
8. Now you have an Segwit wallet with addresses starting with 3.

[1] https://iancoleman.io/bip39/
[2] https://electrum.org/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106716.0

[pooya87]

it has been more than 2.5 years that this address format was introduced in bitcoin protocol and if you are using a platform that doesn't accept this format that means they have not updated their platform for more than 2.5 years and it may be a better idea to not use their services at all since they obviously don't want to spend any money or effort on developing their system and want to remain ancient.

[Little Mouse]

The only downside is that you can't generate it directly in Electrum, you have to use a special tool, which can be a problem if you don't have clean PC (virus/malware free). Since you have Electrum, ignore step 4.

This is not necessary anymore. If you generate a seed, you can access it's segwit address started with 3. You have to check the box bip39 when writing the seed. The tutorial you gave is not anymore necessary.

[hd49728]

it has been more than 2.5 years that this address format was introduced in bitcoin protocol and if you are using a platform that doesn't accept this format that means they have not updated their platform for more than 2.5 years and it may be a better idea to not use their services at all since they obviously don't want to spend any money or effort on developing their system and want to remain ancient.

You nailed it. The lack of upgrades on their systems potentially result in bad outcomes when attacks occur on their sites. It is better to move out of their platforms when everything have smoothly operated.

I would prefer to know how many bitcoin transactions (whole time) have been done with Bench32 addresses and the other types of bitcoin addresses too. Do you know any site that has this information? Please help if you know it.

[joniboini]

One of the possible reasons why they don't update their platform is probably for collecting 'more fees' from their user. I know some platforms do this to justify their 0.0005 BTC fee for withdrawal when they use 2 sat/byte for every tx.

[Little Mouse]

I would prefer to know how many bitcoin transactions (whole time) have been done with Bench32 addresses and the other types of bitcoin addresses too. Do you know any site that has this information? Please help if you know it.

According to a report of cointelegraph, 2 out of 3 transactions are now been done with segwit, that means 66% of the transactions are done by segwit- https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-network-segwit-adoption-hits-66-after-bitmex-embraces-upgrade

Another report says, 1% of BTC are stored in Bech32 addresses.
you can use this to know more info- https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1

[hugeblack]

If you have some time, ask the support team why they did not accept these addresses, generally it gives you a much cheaper fees.

it has been more than 2.5 years that this address format was introduced in bitcoin protocol

The lack of adoption of segwit technology does not necessarily mean that the platform did not update the code, but there are many reasons:
BCH, BSV Supporters: they want high fees to support them useless hardforks.
There is no uniform standard for segwit signatures ( sign/verify a message)
Third party use.

[pooya87]

There is no uniform standard for segwit signatures ( sign/verify a message)

you don't need a "standard" to sign a message from a SegWit address, the process is exactly the same as when you sign a message from any other address and that is also the same exact process of when you sign a transaction. not to mention that there isn't exactly any kind of "standard" for signing a message from a legacy address either.
you could say the only "standard" is ECDSA! you have a private key, a message (which you hash with double SHA256) and produce a duo (r and s) called signature.

the ONLY reason any wallet doesn't support signing a message from a SegWit address feature is that their developer are either lazy or unfamiliar with ECC so they are waiting for bitcoin core to add the feature then copy it and since core doesn't have it they also don't have it!!!

[hatshepsut93]

The lack of adoption of segwit technology does not necessarily mean that the platform did not update the code, but there are many reasons:
BCH, BSV Supporters: they want high fees to support them useless hardforks.
There is no uniform standard for segwit signatures ( sign/verify a message)
Third party use.

In the past, during the so-called scaling debate, there was indeed a desire to keep Bitcoin fees high, and you could witness exchanges and some other services to do any optimizations to their transactions, but today it doesn't happen on any big scale. And the amount of shitcoin supporters within the Bitcoin services is very low, as most of them have already moved on. And the capability for signing messages is rarely needed for services, so it's also not a reason to not adopt segwit.

So, pooya87 is right, if a service doesn't support SegWit addresses, they likely haven't touched their codebase for a long time.

[coupable]

So, pooya87 is right, if a service doesn't support SegWit addresses, they likely haven't touched their codebase for a long time.

Pooya87 also affirmed that we should not use those services at all. This reminds me of Chipmixer mixer who once posted that segwit integration is under development but the post is more than two years old without any update. Check it here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2120757
I remember using chipmixer once and my bech32 address wasn't recognised by the system. I don't know if it's still under developpment or they updated their wallets. Please correct me if am wrong.
Trying not to be off topic, i don't suggest anybody to ignore using ChipMixer for exemple because of lacking updates as the service is very reliable, as we can't ignore using some other good services as well (wallets,explorers,marketplaces...) .
Segwit is an advanced addon to the blockchain for bitcoin, and i really want to see it widely adopted. However, i find it not effeicent to force the adoption by ignoring those who are silly to update their systems/servers.

[khaled0111]

This reminds me of Chipmixer mixer who once posted that segwit integration is under development but the post is more than two years old without any update. Check it here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2120757
I remember using chipmixer once and my bech32 address wasn't recognised by the system. I don't know if it's still under developpment or they updated their wallets. Please correct me if am wrong.

The last time I used their service, I sent from a native segwit address and didn't face any problems. However, you will get your mixed coins on legacy addresses. That's understandable knowing there are customers who may import the receiving addresses into a platform that doesn't accept segwit.

[coupable]

This reminds me of Chipmixer mixer who once posted that segwit integration is under development but the post is more than two years old without any update. Check it here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2120757
I remember using chipmixer once and my bech32 address wasn't recognised by the system. I don't know if it's still under developpment or they updated their wallets. Please correct me if am wrong.

The last time I used their service, I sent from a native segwit address and didn't face any problems. However, you will get your mixed coins on legacy addresses. That's understandable knowing there are customers who may import the receiving addresses into a platform that doesn't accept segwit.

I can understand why chipmixer gives a legacy address for deposits as money can be sent from a platform that doesn't support segwit. This is logic.
However, there is no reason to not accept a segwit address for receiving mixed coins but the system is not yet updated as announced two years ago in the link thread i mentioned.
According to the advice of pooya87, should we stop using Chipmixer. 

[TryNinja]

According to the advice of pooya87, should we stop using Chipmixer.  

You're probably joking but I guess the reason he suggested this was this part of his post:

[...] it may be a better idea to not use their services at all since they obviously don't want to spend any money or effort on developing their system and want to remain ancient.

And I really believe this is not the case for ChipMixer.

It should be ok if there is a valid reason on why a company does not support segwit, right? If anything, maybe they could add an option for users to optionally choose to receive bech32 chips, but this would: 1) make things more complicated; 2) possibly "lower" the size of their chip pool (if segwit is not chosen all the time).

[pooya87]

So, pooya87 is right, if a service doesn't support SegWit addresses, they likely haven't touched their codebase for a long time.

Pooya87 also affirmed that we should not use those services at all. This reminds me of Chipmixer mixer who once posted that segwit integration is under development but the post is more than two years old without any update. Check it here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2120757
I remember using chipmixer once and my bech32 address wasn't recognised by the system. I don't know if it's still under developpment or they updated their wallets. Please correct me if am wrong.
Trying not to be off topic, i don't suggest anybody to ignore using ChipMixer for exemple because of lacking updates as the service is very reliable, as we can't ignore using some other good services as well (wallets,explorers,marketplaces...) .

it is about how a system works. Chipmixer is a special system  ant is needs to work the way it is for the sake of compatibility with all users that come to their platform.

initially they create an address which all users need to be able to deposit into. all users are NOT using upgraded wallets, they may be still using crappy wallets that don't support sending to a SegWit address. so they can't force SegWit deposit addresses. however you can deposit from any type of address, there is no problem there.

when it comes to withdrawals, Chipmixer is not an exchange to let you withdraw your coins to an address. instead they give you "chips" which basically means you get the private key(s) containing the value you mixed and have to sweep or import them yourself. now all users must be able to use these private keys. again the same problem, many of them may still be using crappy wallets that allow importing keys but don't support SegWit addresses so it is not possible for them to force SegWit.