What wallets I can use to get Segwit and Taproot addresses?

[BlackBoss_]

I read that with Segwit and Taproot transactions, I can have cheaper transaction fee.

What wallets allow me to have Segwit and Taproot addreses?

What are difference between Segwit and Taproot transactions?

Between Segwit and Taproot address, what should I use?

If a wallet supports Segwit and Taproot address, does it support Lightning Network?

[1714166689]

1714166689

[1714166689]

1714166689

[1714166689]

1714166689

[1714166689]

1714166689

[NotATether]

What wallets allow me to have Segwit and Taproot addreses?

As of today there is no wallet (that I know of) that generates Taproot addresses although it is supported at a protocol level. But pretty much every wallet made after 2019 supports Segwit addresses.

Segwit addresses start with bc1q, but Taproot addresses start with bc1p.

What are difference between Segwit and Taproot transactions?

Segwit and legacy transactions (we are technically referring to the inputs here) use ECDSA signatures, but Taproot transaction (inputs) are using lighter and more private Schnorr signatures.

Between Segwit and Taproot address, what should I use?

Definitely you should use Taproot addresses when those become available in wallets because they will spend even less transaction fees.

If a wallet supports Segwit and Taproot address, does it support Lightning Network?

LN is a completely different technology and is not guarrenteed to be supported by Segwit/Taproot wallets.

[pooya87]

What wallets allow me to have Segwit and Taproot addreses?

Majority of wallets already support SegWit version 0 addresses. You can use bitcoin core if you are fine with running a full node or choose Electrum if you are fine with running an SPV client.
However I have not yet seen any wallet that lets you create SegWit version 1 addresses (aka Taproot) easily.

What are difference between Segwit and Taproot transactions?

They are both SegWit transactions but what you call "SegWit" is the version 0 and what you call Taproot is version 1.

Version 0 was introduced in 2017 and it was the first attempt to increase the block capacity among other things and pave the way for future development.

Generally speaking when you use SegWit transactions your tx weight becomes smaller so you pay a smaller fee.

Version 1 was introduced recently, it introduced Schnorr signatures which can take up smaller space and Taproot changed the way scripts work and opened the door for some interesting smart contracts.
For example your script could have many branches but you only spend the output by revealing one small part of the branch. Or when it comes to multisignature scripts you could take advantage of Schnorr signatures and combine all the participant keys and only publish one pubkey+signature unlike the previous versions when you had to publish all pubkeys and signatures, this way the tx size is significantly decreased.

Between Segwit and Taproot address, what should I use?

Use SegWit version 0 since there is no user friendly way of using version 1 (aka Taproot).

If a wallet supports Segwit and Taproot address, does it support Lightning Network?

Not necessarily. For example bitcoin core supports both versions but doesn't have any LN code while Electrum supports version 0 and also LN.

[garlonicon]

As of today there is no wallet (that I know of) that generates Taproot addresses

Bitcoin Core of course does that. And yes, it is a wallet, because it can be used offline to sign transactions, there is no need to download the whole chain, it is just more convenient, because then it is possible to use GUI. So, the lack of GUI features that would work offline, is the only drawback.

because they will spend even less transaction fees

It depends. Some examples from testnet3:
Taproot-to-Taproot transaction, 112 vbytes: fcaa640adf77217288ed40f1d623bd98f09370dbc31013e121ddfa053851e373
Segwit-to-Segwit transaction, 110 vbytes: 2bb9718757e8e550aa48e5af2c41bb1e862b68be270483d6d9b6b162dcbd40a8

However I have not yet seen any wallet that lets you create SegWit version 1 addresses (aka Taproot) easily.

You can try Bitcoin Core v23.0.

Code:

getnewaddress "" "bech32m"
bcrt1pt3ugstag3z2mzxech2fwra22usyl72zaxqlm9vh8ue2dee8p0qvsyw6z2x

I don't think it is hard. As I said, the main problem is the lack of GUI features, everything else can be easily done from console. But still, it is possible to run some Bitcoin Core daemon offline, and then connect any GUI-based wallet, that would provide all needed data. If someone does not have a blockchain, it will not be any worse than using some SPV wallet.

Use SegWit version 0 since there is no user friendly way of using version 1 (aka Taproot).

Yes. If you are a user, use SegWit for now, because it has better support. But if you are a programmer, then use Taproot, and base new features on that.

[Pmalek]

As of today there is no wallet (that I know of) that generates Taproot addresses although it is supported at a protocol level. But pretty much every wallet made after 2019 supports Segwit addresses.

Ledger hardware wallets and the native Ledger Live does. If you are using the latest firmware, it contains the needed support for Taproot. You can create a Taproot account just like a Legacy, Nested/Native Segwit account. After that, you can generate Taproot addresses, send, and receive coins. I haven't tested it personally, but the option is there.

When it comes to the choice between Native Segwit and Taproot addresses, I would go for Native Segwit. Taproot is still new and lacks significant support to be used daily without running into difficulties when transacting.

[nc50lc]

I read that with Segwit and Taproot transactions, I can have cheaper transaction fee.
-snip-

Bitcoin Core v23.0 already has the necessary GUI feature to generate bech32m address, of course it supports SegWit as well.
If the wallet contains Taproot parent descriptor (the default in v23.0), there'll be a "bech32m" option in the drop-down menu in the receive tab:


Yes, the absolute fee will be cheaper for SegWit and Taproot because the virtual size of the transaction will be lower than legacy transactions,
but you still have to practice proper coin control in case you're receiving a bunch of small amounts since it's not the only factor that affects the txn's size.

Take note that Bitcoin Core is a Bitcoin full node as well so you might want to research first before deciding: Check your bandwidth and space

[satscraper]

When it comes to the choice between Native Segwit and Taproot addresses, I would go for Native Segwit. Taproot is still new and lacks significant support to be used daily without running into difficulties when transacting.

Taproot gives benefits  to those users whose transactions requires multiple keys to sign them.  If transaction can be signed by single key and broadcasted after that the  taproot has no advantage at all. Is that correct?

[m2017]

As of today there is no wallet (that I know of) that generates Taproot addresses although it is supported at a protocol level. But pretty much every wallet made after 2019 supports Segwit addresses.

Ledger hardware wallets and the native Ledger Live does. If you are using the latest firmware, it contains the needed support for Taproot. You can create a Taproot account just like a Legacy, Nested/Native Segwit account. After that, you can generate Taproot addresses, send, and receive coins. I haven't tested it personally, but the option is there.

When it comes to the choice between Native Segwit and Taproot addresses, I would go for Native Segwit. Taproot is still new and lacks significant support to be used daily without running into difficulties when transacting.

Do I understand correctly that you can only send from Taproot addresses to Taproot addresses? If so, then this imposes restrictions, because as stated in this thread, only Bitcoin Core and Ledger wallet support Taproot addresses at the moment. Maybe some more, but still, apparently a little.


Then the pursuit of the cheapness of the transaction becomes questionable.

I read that with Segwit and Taproot transactions, I can have cheaper transaction fee.

 

As of today there is no wallet (that I know of) that generates Taproot addresses although it is supported at a protocol level. But pretty much every wallet made after 2019 supports Segwit addresses.

Do you have any idea how long it will take for mass distribution of Taproot addresses and the appearance of this protocol in every wallet (at least most of them)?

[Pmalek]

Taproot gives benefits  to those users whose transactions requires multiple keys to sign them.  If transaction can be signed by single key and broadcasted after that the  taproot has no advantage at all. Is that correct?

Taproot certainly helps with multisig transactions, but if I remember correctly, they also make other scripts lighter. Timelocked transactions, for example, take up more space in a block than regular transactions. If I am not mistaken, such (more) complex scripts will take up less space thanks to Taproot.

Do I understand correctly that you can only send from Taproot addresses to Taproot addresses? If so, then this imposes restrictions, because as stated in this thread, only Bitcoin Core and Ledger wallet support Taproot addresses at the moment. Maybe some more, but still, apparently a little.

No, no Taproot is compatible with other address forms as well. You can send from a Taproot address to a Legacy or Segwit address. However, you won't be able to take advantage of signature aggregation that is offered with Taproot. 

The service you are using will have to be compatible with Taproot addresses though. Just like when Segwit was introduced back in 2017/2018 we had many services that didn't recognize Segwit addresses as valid Bitcoin addresses and so you couldn't send Bitcoin to those addresses from those particular places. Even today some platforms haven't been updated to support Native Segwit.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Wallets support Taproot

Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoincore.org/
Sparrow wallet: https://sparrowwallet.com/
Specter wallet: https://specter.solutions/
Fully noded app: https://fullynoded.app/
Nunchuck.io: https://nunchuk.io/
Ledger: https://www.ledger.com/
Trezor: https://trezor.io/
Bitbox02: https://shiftcrypto.ch/bitbox02/

[pooya87]

You can try Bitcoin Core v23.0.

Code:

getnewaddress "" "bech32m"
bcrt1pt3ugstag3z2mzxech2fwra22usyl72zaxqlm9vh8ue2dee8p0qvsyw6z2x

I don't think it is hard. As I said, the main problem is the lack of GUI features, everything else can be easily done from console. But still, it is possible to run some Bitcoin Core daemon offline, and then connect any GUI-based wallet, that would provide all needed data. If someone does not have a blockchain, it will not be any worse than using some SPV wallet.

As @nc50lc said the GUI apparently has the option which makes it easy but remember that "easy" for most users mean a very friendly button in the GUI that they can click to perform an action not a console they have to type commands in. Specially when you also consider those who may not even know what bech32 is to know they have to attach an m at the end too.

Do I understand correctly that you can only send from Taproot addresses to Taproot addresses?

As far as the protocol is concerned, it does not care where the coins come from and where they go to. In other words you can send from any script type to any script type.
The only problem that might be what you had in mind is when for example you want to withdraw from an exchange to your Taproot address and that centralized service doesn't recognize this type of addresses.

[SFR10]

because as stated in this thread, only Bitcoin Core and Ledger wallet support Taproot addresses at the moment.

There are definitely more than a couple of wallets with support for such addresses... In addition to @SquirrelJulietGarden's list, you can find a few more names from "this list ^{[refer to 4th and 5th columns]}".

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

There are definitely more than a couple of wallets with support for such addresses... In addition to @SquirrelJulietGarden's list, you can find a few more names from "this list ^{[refer to 4th and 5th columns]}".

Create Taproot address for your Bitcoin

I don't use all wallets in the list and I wrote that topic with 2 wallets (Bitcoin Core and Sparrow wallets). Husna QA helped me with Trezor wallet.

[Husna QA]

As of today there is no wallet (that I know of) that generates Taproot addresses although it is supported at a protocol level. But pretty much every wallet made after 2019 supports Segwit addresses.

Ledger hardware wallets and the native Ledger Live does. If you are using the latest firmware, it contains the needed support for Taproot. You can create a Taproot account just like a Legacy, Nested/Native Segwit account. After that, you can generate Taproot addresses, send, and receive coins. I haven't tested it personally, but the option is there. -snip-

I have tried to transact using the testnet version of the taproot address in Ledger Live (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376045.msg58669772#msg58669772).



At that time, in Ledger Live v2.35.0, Taproot was still included in the Experimental feature. So to use it, you must first activate the "Experimental JS implementations" feature in the settings.



However, for the updated version of Ledger Live, there is no need for these settings anymore.

[BlackBoss_]

Thank you everyone.

I tried with Bitcoin Core and can do it
How about Electrum wallet?

From release note, it only support sending
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES

* Hardware wallets:
   - trezor: bump trezorlib to 0.13 (#7590)
   - bitbox02: bump bitbox02 to 6.0, support send-to-taproot (#7693)
   - ledger: support "Ledger Nano S Plus" (#7692)

Does it mean only support sending from Electrum to Bitbkx02?

[nc50lc]

I tried with Bitcoin Core and can do it
How about Electrum wallet?
-snip-

That note from v4.2.0 is only for the specific hardware wallet (probably a compatibility to its new firmware that supports send-to-Taproot).

But Electrum can already send to any bech32m address since v4.1.0.

# Release 4.1.0 - Kangaroo (March 30, 2021)
...
 * BIP-0350: use bech32m for witness version 1+ addresses (4315fa43).
   We have supported sending to any witness version since Electrum
   3.0, using BIP-0173 (bech32) addresses. BIP-0350 makes a breaking
   change in address encoding, and recommends using a new encoding
   (bech32m) for sending to witness version 1 and later.

Can it generate Taproot address? Not yet.
A dev said that Taproot support is in "high priority" so it may be added soon: github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/7544#issuecomment-1057198183

[n0nce]

Wallets support Taproot

Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoincore.org/
Sparrow wallet: https://sparrowwallet.com/
Specter wallet: https://specter.solutions/
Fully noded app: https://fullynoded.app/
Nunchuck.io: https://nunchuk.io/
Ledger: https://www.ledger.com/
Trezor: https://trezor.io/
Bitbox02: https://shiftcrypto.ch/bitbox02/

There is a maintained list by dkbit98, over here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5371499.0

He has a pretty good track record of keeping his lists up to date.

[Pieter Wuille]

See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption for a continuously maintained list.