Segwit vs Legacy, fees?

[PointHope]

I am holding legacy.
Confused, should I go segwit for seemingly lower fees?
Pros and cons of each?
Can you go back and forth?

[tranthidung]

Transactions with Segwit addresses can help you to save fees. You need to check platforms you are using that they support Segwit or not support it.

• You can use your Legacy or Segwit address to send your bitcoin to any type of address.
• If you want to withdraw your bitcoin from exchange to a Segwit address, the requirement is that exchange support Segwit for withdrawals.

Read

• Segregated Witness (SegWit) can help you to save fees from witness data.
• Making sense of bitcoin transaction fees
• Transaction size calculations
• Detailed example of 34% reduction in one block between Segwit and Legacy
  
• Check Segwit adoption on exchanges
  
  • Bech32 adoption on Bitcoin Wiki can help somewhat but I don't know how often it is updated.
  • Compatibility Mattrix
  • WhenSegwit.com

With any type of addresses, if you have good plans, when to move your bitcoin, you will have good fee reduction.

• Saving bitcoin high transaction fees
• Saturdays and Sundays have in the past seen market fee densities drop by 50% or more compared to the preceding weekdays.
• Sunday, Saturday are best to move BTC
• Check working-hours effects (0 - 11 UTC is best to move BTC). Make sure to avoid 13 UTC when BitMEX broadcast transactions

[bitmover]

I am holding legacy.
Confused, should I go segwit for seemingly lower fees?

You shouldn't move your coins now to a Segwit address. There is no need. You are going to pay fees now, to pay less fees in the future? It is not worth, imo.

But your new deposits should go to a segwit address, (addresses that start with 3 or bc1). Why? To pay less fees.

Pros and cons of each?

This is the only advantage for segwit for common users: pay less fees when transferring.

From legacy to a native segwit, you save from 35% up to 50% on fees. You can simulate fees reduction here.

Can you go back and forth?

Yes, at any time you can transfer your coins to a Legacy or a Segwit address. It is a normal transaction, you will only pay miners fees.

[Oshosondy]

Confused, should I go segwit for seemingly lower fees?

It is good to go for segwit than wasting more btc on transaction fee, you can reduce money on fee significantly if you use segwit. There is a topic in beginners and help that can help you know more about the fee paid which is low in segwit.

Why do you need both segwit and legacy addresses? Before you make your decision, you will pay more fee why using legacy address for payment.

Legacy have the high transaction fee
Nested segwit (3-prefix addresses) can reduce the fee up to 26%
Native segwit (bc1- prefix addresses)  can reduce the fee up to 42%

Also know that you can transfer bitcoin to any of the addresses, you can transfer from segwit to legacy or from legacy to segwit. But using segwit will safe you fee while making Bitcoin transactions. The reason best for you to just send your bitcoin to native segwit addresses.

Just a small correction:
Using native segwit addresses, the transaction fee can be decreased even by more than 42%.

The transaction fee is decreased by 26% when there are 1 P2SH input and 2 outputs.
The transaction fee is decreased by 42% when there are 1 bech32 input and 1 output.

For example, size of a transaction including 10 bech32 inputs and 1 output would be about 722 vbytes and 1524 bytes. That's more than 52% reduce in transaction fee.

The best you can reach is around a 54% reduction. A P2PKH input is 148 vbytes, while a P2WPKH input is 68 vbytes, for a difference of 80 vbytes. 80/148 = 0.54. There are of course other differences between the size of outputs and the size of the transaction header, but these are very small compared to the size of inputs.

You shouldn't move your coins now to a Segwit address. There is no need. You are going to pay fees now, to pay less fees in the future? It is not worth, imo.

It depends on the amount, he can decide to transfer 0.01 btc and make more than 10 transactions from it.

[ranochigo]

Transactions with Segwit addresses can help you to save fees. You need to check platforms you are using that they support Segwit or not support it.

You can use your Legacy or Segwit address to send your bitcoin to any type of address.
If you want to withdraw your bitcoin from exchange to a Segwit address, the requirement is that exchange support Segwit for withdrawals.

Supporting P2SH (which they obviously should) is probably sufficient. Using nested Segwit will allow for still a significant savings as compared to legacy addresses.

I can't really see any disadvantages of using it, though there isn't a current standards for message signatures but that isn't exactly a dealbreaker either.

[sheenshane]

I am holding legacy.
Confused, should I go segwit for seemingly lower fees?

First, I tend to agree with all comments above that have more advantages is using the Segwit address which far better when we talk about the fees.  But what is the purpose of switching Bitcoin wallets that supports Segwit address if you aren't regularly having transaction, if you're holding it for a long term, that is okay using a legacy address.

Pros and cons of each?

It was said above, Segwit wallet is for the reduction of transaction fees, also the best of signature, and in the network optimizations while the legacy wallet address is the origin of the Bitcoin wallet which is having high fees.

Can you go back and forth?

It is absolutely Yes but it depends on which Bitcoin wallet you've used because there are some Bitcoin wallets that didn't fully support Segwit addresses, nested, or native addresses.  Probably it's better to check it first before you decide to have a transaction.

[Oshosondy]

Transactions with Segwit addresses can help you to save fees. You need to check platforms you are using that they support Segwit or not support it.

You can use your Legacy or Segwit address to send your bitcoin to any type of address.
If you want to withdraw your bitcoin from exchange to a Segwit address, the requirement is that exchange support Segwit for withdrawals.

Supporting P2SH (which they obviously should) is probably sufficient. Using nested Segwit will allow for still a significant savings as compared to legacy addresses.

You can send from one address to another, if you want to send to segwit from exchanges, it is possible irrespective of the bitcoin address you are using. There are some exchanges that only support legacy addresses, there are some that only support only compatible (3) addresses, there are some that support segwit (bc1) addresses, but segwit or legacy, the withdrawal fee are constant on exchanges. I will still also prefer segwit (bc1) addresses than compatible (3) addresees on wallets because of low fee.

[bitmover]

Pros and cons of each?

It was said above, Segwit wallet is for the reduction of transaction fees, also the best of signature, and in the network optimizations while the legacy wallet address is the origin of the Bitcoin wallet which is having high fees.

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

Segwit addresses cannot sign messages. This is one of cons pointed out ranochigo.

Well, it can sign messages, but there is no standard to recognize it. In practice, you cannot sign  a message from segwit addresses which will be recognized by all software.

But you can with Legacy. A message signed from a legacy address will be recognized everywhere.

But, no big deal...

[dolcemariposa1]

I prefer Segwit to save fees

[ranochigo]

You can send from one address to another, if you want to send to segwit from exchanges, it is possible irrespective of the bitcoin address you are using. There are some exchanges that only support legacy addresses, there are some that only support only compatible (3) addresses, there are some that support segwit (bc1) addresses, but segwit or legacy, the withdrawal fee are constant on exchanges. I will still also prefer segwit (bc1) addresses than compatible (3) addresees on wallets because of low fee.

If they don't support P2SH addresses, then it's probably poor implementation and I would rather people not support them. P2SH has been around since 2012, which is probably earlier than what most services were established.

Withdrawal fees are usually the same for all address types when using exchange. The problem arises when you're trying to spend it. No matter what happens, you're going to have to spend more when you're spending your Bitcoins. As most wallets only support generating one of the three address type in the a single wallet, it's entirely possible that the user will end up never using Segwit addresses.

[tranthidung]

As most wallets only support generating one of the three address type in the a single wallet, it's entirely possible that the user will end up never using Segwit addresses.

Segwit usages begin with non custodial wallet usage and then choose a good non-custodial wallet that support Segwit address. Two first acceptances need to be done before other things can be done.

People can not control what exchanges do and accept but they can always save fees on their activities. They always have options to choose and Segwit is one of such. If they reject their control, they can not blame it on exchanges.

[ranochigo]

Segwit usages begin with non custodial wallet usage and then choose a good non-custodial wallet that support Segwit address. Two first acceptances need to be done before other things can be done.

People can not control what exchanges do and accept but they can always save fees on their activities. They always have options to choose and Segwit is one of such. If they reject their control, they can not blame it on exchanges.

Custodial wallets can also support Segwit and save on the fees, so I'll argue that usage of non-custodial wallet is out of the equation.

From what I've seen, most people actually don't bother to move their funds from legacy addresses after they receive it from their exchange. Mostly due to the fact that people hardly use Bitcoin for their normal payment and thus don't usually face an issue. If you're not going to give the user an option to use segwit addresses, then the user might be less motivated to use Segwit from the on-start and exchange might be contributing to network congestion as well. I personally wouldn't support them as the costs are usually borne by the user in one way or another.

[pooya87]

Segwit addresses cannot sign messages. This is one of cons pointed out ranochigo.

Well, it can sign messages, but there is no standard to recognize it. In practice, you cannot sign  a message from segwit addresses which will be recognized by all software.

You don't sign message with you address, you sign them with your private key. And as long as you can sign a transaction you can also sign a message.
There IS a standard for signing messages from any address type available, and it has been around for many years now and is recognized by major bitcoin implementations. If one software doesn't have the feature then it is that software's flaw and you should complain to their developers about why they haven't implemented such an old feature.

For reference:
BIP 137 existed from early years but turned into BIP in 2019: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0137.mediawiki
BIP 322 created in 2018 and covers more cases: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki

[ranochigo]

There IS a standard for signing messages from any address type available, and it has been around for many years now and is recognized by major bitcoin implementations. If one software doesn't have the feature then it is that software's flaw and you should complain to their developers about why they haven't implemented such an old feature.

I don't think Bitcoin Core implemented either of the BIP? Or I can't find any of sign of the two being implemented.

Yes, it's possible to sign a message with the private key but you cannot refer to the bech32 address directly in doing so; exporting key-> sign message. You have to access the console to call signmessagewithprivkey and use your private key to do so.

[GeorgeJohn]

I prefer Segwit to save fees

How did you prefer it, people are saying both are correlated in terms of charges, but these is really giving a problem because in any transaction now the charges almost consumed half of the money using for transportation, I want to know the causes of these.

[DeadCoin]

I prefer Segwit to save fees

How did you prefer it, people are saying both are correlated in terms of charges, but these is really giving a problem because in any transaction now the charges almost consumed half of the money using for transportation, I want to know the causes of these.

Because most commonly of Legacy bitcoin addresses are web wallets that can not modify the fees.
Probably because this will reduces the mempool network congestion and decrease the average transaction fee.

What transportation? Do you mean riding a bus? The cause is simply because the network is heavily congested.
it means there are too many bitcoin users.

[pooya87]

There IS a standard for signing messages from any address type available, and it has been around for many years now and is recognized by major bitcoin implementations. If one software doesn't have the feature then it is that software's flaw and you should complain to their developers about why they haven't implemented such an old feature.

I don't think Bitcoin Core implemented either of the BIP? Or I can't find any of sign of the two being implemented.

Yes, it's possible to sign a message with the private key but you cannot refer to the bech32 address directly in doing so; exporting key-> sign message. You have to access the console to call signmessagewithprivkey and use your private key to do so.

As I said BIP137 existed long before it turned into a BIP and bitcoin core does support it (at least 9 years ago) it is just not called that and it doesn't support the SegWit part and it is bitcoin core's missing feature which core users should ask the devs to implement it. (but nobody seems to be interested in the feature enough to make the effort!).

[Oshosondy]

Segwit addresses cannot sign messages. This is one of cons pointed out ranochigo.

Well, it can sign messages, but there is no standard to recognize it. In practice, you cannot sign  a message from segwit addresses which will be recognized by all software.

But you can with Legacy. A message signed from a legacy address will be recognized everywhere.

I do not think this is an issue if there are lot of software to sign segwit message, any wallet that support segwit and that can verify message will verify segwit message, I have used electrum and coinomi for this before, there are still some wallets like that, I will soon try the one on mycelium, and I believed it will be able to verify segwit messages.

If they don't support P2SH addresses, then it's probably poor implementation and I would rather people not support them. P2SH has been around since 2012, which is probably earlier than what most services were established.

Withdrawal fees are usually the same for all address types when using exchange. The problem arises when you're trying to spend it. No matter what happens, you're going to have to spend more when you're spending your Bitcoins. As most wallets only support generating one of the three address type in the a single wallet, it's entirely possible that the user will end up never using Segwit addresses.

You are right, but what I can say here is that it is not good for exchange not to support segwit, like Binance, it does not support P2SH, Binance was only supoorting legacy before but in 2020 it started to support bc1 addreses which I think it is enough. But I get the point for exchanges to support P2SH also, but I do not know the reason why exchanges are not just flexible like wallets when it comes to address types.

[Charles-Tim]

How did you prefer it, people are saying both are correlated in terms of charges, but these is really giving a problem because in any transaction now the charges almost consumed half of the money using for transportation, I want to know the causes of these.

No, transaction fee can not consume half of the bitcoin sent, it depends, bitcoin transaction is measured in weight. For example, you want to make a transaction of $10 with segwit address, while the mempool is not congested and a feerate of 30 sat/vbytes can make the transaction included in the next block and be confirmed, this will cost around $1.8 with the present bitcoin price, also consider the transaction to have 1 input and 2 outputs. Although, $1.8 is paid for $10 transaction, but if it is the conditions are constant (1 input, 1 output, segwit address used and mempool is 30 sat/vbyte), making higher transaction like $1000 or even higher will still only cost $1.8 in fee to be paid, but this is when you use wallets.

Transaction fee is not determined by the amount of bitcoin paid, it is determined by:

• Mempool
• The type of address used
• Number of inputs and Outputs
• Transaction weight

If mempool is not congested, you will pay lower fee, the more the congestion, the higher the feerate and the higher the fee. The number of inputs in a transaction makes the transaction weight heavier, which will significantly increase the fee, the number of output also does but does not make transactions weight much heavier if compared to number of inputs.

On exchanges, the fee is not flexible but static, exchanges have a constant fee customers do pay. Like on binance, the fee is 0.0005BTC, likewise on HBTC exchange. On HitBTC, the fee is 0.0009BTC, there are some exchanges that still charge higher and some charge lower fee, but on each exchange, the fee is constant irrespective of the addresses used. Although, the exchanges uses this to gain because the exchange will pay less fee to miners, use less fee to consolidate and gain the remaining fee paid. So, the extra fee which makes exchanges fee higher and yet constant is for the exchange maintainance, and this is not how normal wallets operates.
 

[tranthidung]

No, transaction fee can not consume half of the bitcoin sent

More than half of input value: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/85329b9ff63ee1a2ab7602a338b857d3427e6d2d44b10ddb25591605a1b04ffa

If you take the basics of transaction size that does not depend on the amount of bitcoin you send out in one transaction, fees can consume most of your input value if you use high fee rate and many small inputs.

Code:

Size * fee rate = transaction fee

size does not depend on the input value.

I am sorry. My English is bad.

Hope you read what I posted above, I think it is clear how I mentioned 'it depends'.

Your post is very long and I don't read it all. Another minus point in your post is bad punctuations. Frankly said, it is my contribution for your writing. It is not my attack.

I bet that anyone can understand your sentence

No, transaction fee can not consume half of the bitcoin sent, it depends, bitcoin transaction is measured in weight

When trying to write quality posts, a lot of people act as though they're writing a book report for school