Is it recommended to send large amount on BECH32 (natiive segwit) addresses?

[glimpse]

Can I send large amount of BTC (from 3 BTC) on bc1 addresses or better to use segwit (that start with 3) addresses?
Thanx in advance

[1715217339]

1715217339

[1715217339]

1715217339

[LoyceV]

There's (of course) no upper limit for sending to Bech32 addresses. As long as your sending wallet supports it, any amount is fine.

[pooya87]

Bitcoin use UTXO (Unspent Transaction (TX) Output), where every bitcoin transaction sends from at least zero address to one or more addresses.

If you start with UTXO, end your sentence with it too.
Transactions aren't sent from "addresses" because that would be limiting the potential. Address is a user friendly way of representing only a small number of output scripts. Transactions have inputs (the same UTXOs) and they have to have at least 1 not zero input. And have to create at least 1 output.

[DireWolfM14]

Can I send large amount of BTC (from 3 BTC) on bc1 addresses or better to use segwit (that start with 3) addresses?
Thanx in advance

I may be misunderstanding your question, or you may be misunderstanding which wallets are segwit.  Addresses that start with bc1 are native segwit (p2wpkh,) and addresses that start with 3 are nested segwit (p2wpkh to p2sh.)  Both are cheaper on fees (by small margin) when spending, and both are fine to use.

Some web wallets, exchanges, and other services can't send to a native segwit (bc1) wallet, so if you use those services often you may want to use a nested segwit wallet (3) instead.  There's no limit as to how much you can send to, or spend from either type.

[pooya87]

but probably it's not good idea to hold on such kind of addresses the big sum due to their ^{length-extension mutation weakness.}.  bech32 addresses are panned  to be updated to bech32m

You are confused about what this means.
First of all this doesn't affect the version 0 of bech32 addresses due to their length limit (20 and 32 bytes only) which is what we are using right now since there is no version 1+ yet added to the protocol. And when the newer versions come they will use the new format while v0 can stick to the same old format without any issue.

Secondly even for vulnerable version 1+ this mostly affects you when trying to transfer the address over an insecure channel that may be maliciously changed. In which case you have more things to worry about than this vulnerability.

[pooya87]

So I prudently decline bech32 and AFAIK, most people do the same and  hold their bitcoin on address  which are either P2PKH or P2SH.

That's unfortunate that there are still people who are making uninformed decisions like this and based on superstition.
Here is a somewhat similar vulnerability in Base58 encoding in a P2PKH address:
1BvBMSEYstWetqTFn5Au4m4GFg7xJaNVN2, 1BCBMSEYstWetqTFn5AP4m4GFgExJJNDN2. Two addresses are valid and look alike with some characters altered.