Segwit Adoption. I looked at some data, and we are not there yet.

[Carlton Banks]

note that if you're simply counting the 3- addresses (without waiting for them to be spent from), there is no way of knowing whether they're segwit addresses or some other type of script.

with 3- addresses, the spend script is concealed until spending time, from which point the BTC is no longer stored at that address anyway.

[1715108594]

1715108594

[1715108594]

1715108594

[1715108594]

1715108594

[tranthidung]

• More impressively, this growth is opposite with the decreases from 1- and 3-address since January 2021, especially since May 2021. It means, Bech32-address actually takes over 1- and 3-address types. Its growth does not only come from the bigger adoption of Bitcoin

PlanB discovered the same growth of Segwit adoption.

• He tweeted there
• Woobull's live chart

bitcoin fees (blue line) are low since this summer. This is not because of low transactions (low demand for blockspace), but because a large exchange (I will not say who) finally implemented segwit transactions. Segwit adoption (yellow line) is now ~80%. Expect fees to stay low.

The x-axis label does not show specific months but from the chart of PlanB, I guess the growth occurs around May or June 2021. That matches my findings above.

What exchange involves in that growth?

• Is it Binance? Segwit adoption support was announced in December 2020
• Support does not enough and it takes time for people to be aware of Segwit advantages and adapt to Segwit transactions. So I feel reasonable (5 months from Dec 2020 to May 2021) to see this adaptation and signifcant growth)

[ranochigo]

What exchange involves in that growth?

Is it Binance? Segwit adoption support was announced in December 2020
Support does not enough and it takes time for people to be aware of Segwit advantages and adapt to Segwit transactions. So I feel reasonable (5 months from Dec 2020 to May 2021) to see this adaptation and signifcant growth)

Probably not. An overwhelming majority of Binance transactions are still legacy. Their hot wallet is here: 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s. You can see that a huge bulk of consolidations all originate from v1 Bitcoin addresses. Default, CMIIW is still legacy addresses and you can toggle between those and which most people probably won't because it doesn't benefit them. I'll probably assume that Binance has nothing to do with this but rather because of the drop in TX volume recently, then you're seeing lesser of the groups of people who are not concerned about using Segwit.

[Karartma1]

The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.
To me this seems to be the real motivation.

[LoyceV]

The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.

The additional fees for their own massive wallet are negligible compared to the fees on consolidating deposits. Address 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s has more than a million transactions, and almost 15 million Bitcoin went through it. Binance still pays 100 sat/vbyte for withdrawals, even though they could get away with 90 to 99% less. They're simply too rich and charge users too much for withdrawals to care about fees. And they want to keep withdrawal fees high to promote their own centralized shitcoin: they want users to withdraw made-up tokens instead of real Bitcoins. Low fees and smaller transaction sizes don't align with their (financial) interests.

[Karartma1]

The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.

The additional fees for their own massive wallet are negligible compared to the fees on consolidating deposits. Address 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s has more than a million transactions, and almost 15 million Bitcoin went through it. Binance still pays 100 sat/vbyte for withdrawals, even though they could get away with 90 to 99% less. They're simply too rich and charge users too much for withdrawals to care about fees. And they want to keep withdrawal fees high to promote their own centralized shitcoin: they want users to withdraw made-up tokens instead of real Bitcoins. Low fees and smaller transaction sizes don't align with their (financial) interests.

This was the simplest answer, in fact.
On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).
As you said, the simple answer is that they don't care and by doing that they promote their useless binance coin and blockchain.

[LoyceV]

On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).

I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.

[n0nce]

On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).

I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.

Damnnn that's a biig potential point of failure man. Quite happy that I don't didn't ever keep funds on exchanges (tbh don't use those anymore nowadays).... Their opsec must be super tight with so much power in 1 private key.

[Karartma1]

On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).

I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

That goes beyond any sane and logical risk management approach. Maybe I'm a black sheep here but I've never used them and knowing what I know now I'm more than happy to have never entrusted them with my precious satoshis.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.

On this, if they're to become compliant in several jurisdictions that needs to change as well.