[LIST] Bech32 Bitcoin addresses Not supported

[dkbit98]

Bech32 or Native Segwit addresses (starting with bc1) are getting more popular and growing in numbers every day because of smaller size and cheaper fees for transactions. (Full Bech32 stats HERE.)
Native Segwit adoption is on the rise and many wallets and exchanges are supporting it, but not all of them.

I will list and keep updated here all (lazy) exchanges and wallets and other services not (fully) supporting Bech32:

|

Wallet

|

Send to

|

Create/Receive

|

|

Armory

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

JoinMarket

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

btc.com

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Casa

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Guarda

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Casa

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Abra

|

No

|

No

|

|

Jaxx

|

No

|

No

|

|

BlockstreamGreen

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Bitpay

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Copay

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Bither

|

?

|

No

|

|

Exchange

|

Send to

|

Create/Receive

|

|

Bitmex

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Bittrex

|

No

|

No

|

|

CEX

|

No

|

No

|

|

HitBTC

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Kraken

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Poloniex

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Localbitcoins.com

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Uphold

|

No

|

No

|

|

Paxful

|

?

|

No

|

|

Other Services

|

Send to

|

Create/Receive

|

|

BitGo

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Xapo

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

Edge

|

Yes

|

No

|

|

FortuneJack

|

No

|

No

|

|

Roobet

|

?

|

No

|

|

Betfury

|

?

|

No

|

Send to: Allow sending to bech32 addresses?
Create/Receive: Allow generation and receiving to bech32 addresses?

*NOTE: You can always send Bitcoins from a bech32 to any Bitcoin address format.

*Update is in progress and main source1, source2 and source3 may be outdated.

If you know know any other exchange, website, service, casino or wallet not supporting Bech32 address format please post it here, and please correct me if you see any mistake.

[1713575885]

1713575885

[pooya87]

Bech32 or Native Segwit addresses (starting with bc1) are getting more popular and growing in numbers every day because of smaller size and cheaper fees for transactions.

you are thinking of "weight" not "size". SegWit transaction sizes can be bigger compared to legacy ones and specifically be a lot bigger when the nested SegWit is used instead of native ones. but since fees are calculated based on weight and SegWit transactions have lower weight in comparison, you end up paying less fee.

Native Segwit adoption is on the rise

i'm curious if there is any data to support this, i thought it plateaued a while ago.

and many wallets and exchanges are supporting it, but not all of them.

at this point any tools or services that don't support a useful feature that was added to the protocol 3.5 years ago should be considered insecure to use because it means they are either incompetent to upgrade their system even after all this time or they are malicious and don't want to upgrade.

[Yogee]

Bread wallet fully supports bech32 since 2018 according to their tweet https://twitter.com/BRDHQ/status/1063513088069173249

SegWit support has arrived to BRD

As you know we are building for the future. As of today, BRD fully supports native SegWit (Bech32).

Another post from reddit that uses the same wiki source proves it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ba1l79/switch_to_bech32_native_segwit_wallets_this_is/

Kinda weird that Jameson Lopp talks about native segwit yet his Casa wallet doesn't fully support it. Is he waiting for Taproot and Schnorr based on this tweet https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1261323165726380036

[witcher_sense]

According to the source you provided, exchanges don't seem interested in SegWit implementation. It is not surprising at all since almost all the centralized exchanges make money on trading and listing shitcoins, especially they prefer the trendy ones such as DeFI scams, ICO scams and the like. Their motto is "I love bitcoin, buy my shitcoin". They want us to gamble on thousands of useless cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is merely bait, that is why everything exchanges offer regarding bitcoin will likely remain obsolete, inadequate and undeveloped.

[hugeblack]

Are all the problems technical (lazy exchanges and wallets,) or did Bech32 addresses have some problems as there was no specific standard for signing the message.
Also, not updating does not mean that they are lazy, but they may not want that, as many of these platforms promote altcoins, and therefore it is in their interest to keep fees slightly high so that there is a logical reason for using altcoins.

[Charles-Tim]

pooya87 is very right, legacy and nested segwit calculate transaction fee in size which is in satoshi/byte, but native segwit calculates fee in weight which is in satoshi/vbytes. The weight of the transaction makes the fee in native segwit to be reduced than in nested segwit and legacy.

Secondly, if you are sending from native segwit address to non-native segwit address, the transaction fee will still be high, the only time the fee will be low is when you are sending from native segwit address to native segwit addresses.

I will list and keep updated here all lazy exchanges and wallets and other services not (fully) supporting Bech32:

I will advice you to also list the wallets that are supoorting native segwit addresses to be included, because the wallet people will be looking for are the ones that support native segwit, and going through your topic can make them easily identify wallets that support native segwit.

[dkbit98]

Thank you for explanations.

i'm curious if there is any data to support this, i thought it plateaued a while ago.

Sure there is, and if you look you will see I posted Bech32 statistics link in first post.

Bread wallet fully supports bech32 since 2018 according to their tweet https://twitter.com/BRDHQ/status/1063513088069173249

Another post from reddit that uses the same wiki source proves it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ba1l79/switch_to_bech32_native_segwit_wallets_this_is/

Kinda weird that Jameson Lopp talks about native segwit yet his Casa wallet doesn't fully support it. Is he waiting for Taproot and Schnorr based on this tweet https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1261323165726380036

Yes it is weird his Casa wallet is still on the list

Thank you for noticing that Breadwallet now supports bech32.
I corrected and removed it from the list.

I will advice you to also list the wallets that are supoorting native segwit addresses to be included, because the wallet people will be looking for are the ones that support native segwit, and going through your topic can make them easily identify wallets that support native segwit.

I was thinking of making that list, but maybe later.
For now you will know wallet is supporting Bech32 if it's not on this list

Are all the problems technical (lazy exchanges and wallets,) or did Bech32 addresses have some problems as there was no specific standard for signing the message.
Also, not updating does not mean that they are lazy, but they may not want that, as many of these platforms promote altcoins, and therefore it is in their interest to keep fees slightly high so that there is a logical reason for using altcoins.

If Bech32 addresses have some problems, then Legacy and Segwit addresses also have their own problems and excuses like altcoins is not good enough, but sure, some services just don't want to support Bech32 for various reasons and to me it looks a bit lazy

This is explanation Chipmixer gave to me:

We are not supporting Bech32.
We are aware of advantages it gives but we support customers that use old wallets.

Deposit address is legacy address. Chip address is legacy address.
You can send Bech32 -> legacy, receive chips and sweep them to Bech32 address.

[bitmover]

Native Segwit adoption is on the rise

i'm curious if there is any data to support this, i thought it plateaued a while ago.

I made a quick google search and found something herE:
https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments-spending-segwit/



Segwit adoption is still growing. In January 2020 there was 60% adoption, now we have 66%.

it is natural that growth will be slower from now on, as most transactions are already done by segwit. It was easy to jump from 10 to 20%, but it will be much harder to jump from 66-76%. But we are doing fine I guess.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Are all the problems technical (lazy exchanges and wallets,) or did Bech32 addresses have some problems as there was no specific standard for signing the message.

I can't speak for the centralized exchanges (and since some centralized exchanges have implemented it without issue then there is no good reason the others cannot also), but for Bisq there are issues regarding the bitcoinj library. They are being actively worked on: https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/226

pooya87 is very right, legacy and nested segwit calculate transaction fee in size which is in satoshi/byte, but native segwit calculates fee in weight which is in satoshi/vbytes.

That's not right. All transaction types should be measured in virtual bytes, but only purely legacy transactions will have identical values in both bytes and virtual bytes.

The weight of the transaction makes the fee in native segwit to be reduced than in nested segwit and legacy.

Nested segwit still has a lower fee than legacy, just not as low as native segwit.

Secondly, if you are sending from native segwit address to non-native segwit address, the transaction fee will still be high, the only time the fee will be low is when you are sending from native segwit address to native segwit addresses.

Again, that's not right. An input contributes much more to the transaction size than an output. Using segwit inputs will still save a great deal of fees, regardless of what type of outputs you are sending to.

[bitmover]

pooya87 is very right, legacy and nested segwit calculate transaction fee in size which is in satoshi/byte, but native segwit calculates fee in weight which is in satoshi/vbytes.

That's not right. All transaction types should be measured in virtual bytes, but only purely legacy transactions will have identical values in both bytes and virtual bytes.

The weight of the transaction makes the fee in native segwit to be reduced than in nested segwit and legacy.

Nested segwit still has a lower fee than legacy, just not as low as native segwit.

Secondly, if you are sending from native segwit address to non-native segwit address, the transaction fee will still be high, the only time the fee will be low is when you are sending from native segwit address to native segwit addresses.

Again, that's not right. An input contributes much more to the transaction size than an output. Using segwit inputs will still save a great deal of fees, regardless of what type of outputs you are sending to.

You can just play around this tool I made to confirm everything o_e_l_e_o said about inputs, vbytes, transaction vsize, etc

You can just enter the number of inputs/outputs, address format, etc and you will see how it works and how much you can save on fees by ypgrading to p2sh-segwit or bech-32.

[joniboini]

Here's another source that covers more services: https://bitcoinops.org/en/compatibility/.

I'm a bit confused by the Create/Receive part. At first I kinda get the impression that the transaction made from the bech32 address won't show up on those services, but I vaguely remember that I used a bech32 address to send some Bitcoin to Binance a while back. Can anybody confirm this? Or does that part mean the ability to generate a bech32 receiving address only?

[dkbit98]

For everyone who asked for Bech32 stats before, here is one screenshot, and you can find stats for all other address formats also:


https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1

Here's another source that covers more services: https://bitcoinops.org/en/compatibility/.

I'm a bit confused by the Create/Receive part. At first I kinda get the impression that the transaction made from the bech32 address won't show up on those services, but I vaguely remember that I used a bech32 address to send some Bitcoin to Binance a while back. Can anybody confirm this? Or does that part mean the ability to generate a bech32 receiving address only?

Thanks for posting one more source, but I think it is also a bit outdated.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I think Trezor hardware wallet now supports Bech32 and Coinbase exchange also, but I will have to double check everything from that list and update.

You can send from Binance exchange to Bech32 wallet address, but you can't generate Bech32 address on Binance and that means you can't receive.

[bitmover]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think Trezor hardware wallet now supports Bech32 and Coinbase exchange also, but I will have to double check everything from that list and update.

Trezor hardware wallet already supports bech32 address format in its firmware if you use Electrum.

However, there is still lack of functionallity in its native software (Trezor Wallet)

Trezor with Bech32 addresses
Trezor already implemented Bech32 addresses in its firmware, it is possible to send funds to Bech32 addresses using Trezor Wallet. Receiving is possible using Electrum with native segwit (P2WPKH) option.

source: https://wiki.trezor.io/Bech32

[Pmalek]

It might be interesting to expand the list by adding which online/Bitcoin casinos support native segwit withdrawals and which don't. I am afraid that many still haven't added support for Bech32. I am more curious about those who support it.

I can say for sure that FortuneJack doesn't. I withdrew some money from there a few nights ago, and Bech32 addresses are not recognized as valid. 

[dkbit98]

It might be interesting to expand the list by adding which online/Bitcoin casinos support native segwit withdrawals and which don't. I am afraid that many still haven't added support for Bech32. I am more curious about those who support it.

I can say for sure that FortuneJack doesn't. I withdrew some money from there a few nights ago, and Bech32 addresses are not recognized as valid.  

Yes, I added other Services section and I will slowly add more websites and casinos that don't support Bech32 addresses, but I will need help from other gambling members for that. I will try to keep this topic updated, but if you notice any updates or changes please post in this topic.
FortuneJack will now be added to the list.
I also added Roobet casino because I know they only support creating oldest format BTC address P2PKH, but I am not sure in withdrawing to Bech32 is supported.

[joniboini]

You can send from Binance exchange to Bech32 wallet address, but you can't generate Bech32 address on Binance and that means you can't receive.

But you can still send from bech32 address to your Binance wallet right? That's what my question is about. Hence why I found the receive part to be a bit confusing.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think Trezor hardware wallet now supports Bech32 and Coinbase exchange also, but I will have to double check everything from that list and update.

The list is about the web wallet and not the HW itself, you can click the X/V part for more details. As for Coinbase it's probably outdated since the last update is on April 2019.

[buwaytress]

While we're sort of naming and shaming, might I suggest also we promote services that do? This might encourage other services to then look at their competitors to see what works and how it's implemented. Might even get people to reach out and cooperate.

Let me commend Fairlay here for being bech32 supporting since at least 2019, both for sending and withdrawing.

And because I've just used them, Freebitco.in supports bech32 withdrawals.

But you can still send from bech32 address to your Binance wallet right? That's what my question is about. Hence why I found the receive part to be a bit confusing.

You can ALWAYS send from a bech32 to any Bitcoin address. It's like O positive blood. Bech32 is the universal sender.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It's like O positive blood. Bech32 is the universal sender.

O negative is the universal donor.

[Artemis3]

Excellent initiative, shame on them. May their potential users think twice before going for a service or wallet that will make them spend more.

There are some similar lists in the Bitcoin wikis.

[target]

Isn't coinomi and trust wallet among them? I have used these two for awhile already.

I don't remember where I've read it but someone recommended that we create new wallet for every transaction to be made. And this is for security reasons because for every transaction the public key of the address is exposed. This could be too much of a security measure I suppose but it must have been a good practice and there are exchanges that I see allowing users to generate addresses.  Is there any of them that has plans for this?