I am a bit confused about this...

[letteredhub]

I am a bit confused as I haven't don't this particular process before as it's my first time.
I have some bitcoin in my electrum wallet which I want to transfer into my binance account  but the issue is that I am confused on which of the network is the right one to use in making the transfer deposit into my binance.
let me illustrate: after clicking on deposit i selected BTC and many networks pop up, now what am confused about is which one is the correct network to use between "Bitcoin", and "BTC (segwit).
Since the two one bears bitcoin in the full spelling of it while the other is the acronym of it with a (segwit) attached.


Pls help I don't want to make expensive mistake and loss my assets.

[Charles-Tim]

You can use bitcoin or bitcoin segwit, both are bitcoin addresses. The bitcoin is a legacy address, starting from 1, while bitcoin segwit is a native segwit version 0 address that start from bc1.

Know that any other address on Binance are not bitcoin addresses, they are altcoins.

Bonus:
Use native segwit (bc1 addresses), for low transaction fee.

[hosseinimr93]

To add to Charles-Tim's reply:
Take note that bitcoin and BTC(Segwit) options that are shown on binance are not two different networks. They are just different address types and you can send bitcoin to any of them you want. We have only one bitcoin chain and there is no bitcoin on BEP20, BEP2, ERC20 networks. Binance always try to deceive users into using their fake bitcoins instead of the real bitcoin.

[nc50lc]

Take note that by using "BTC(SegWit)" Deposit option in Binance, you wont save any transaction fee on your deposit.
It's them (Binance) who'll save on fees when consolidating those deposits. (you'll save fee if you're using SegWit input [sender], not the output [receiver])

The only use of those two options "BEP20" & "BEP2" is if you're depositing from another exchange using those "Networks".
In the background, they'll send "non-Bitcoin Tokens" on the selected network (Binance Smart Chain or BNB Beacon Chain) which has same value as Bitcoin when deposited.
It only has value inside of those Exhange when credited to your Bitcoin balance
so do not keep them outside of the Exhange as much as possible if you somehow decided to select those when you withdraw (seriously, don't)

The initial reason those are added is to save fees and time, but given that Bitcoin's optimal fee is small most of the time, those are quite obsolete.

[letteredhub]

You can use bitcoin or bitcoin segwit, both are bitcoin addresses. The bitcoin is a legacy address, starting from 1, while bitcoin segwit is a native segwit version 0 address that start from bc1.

Know that any other address on Binance are not bitcoin addresses, they are altcoins.

Bonus:
Use native segwit (bc1 addresses), for low transaction fee.

I appreciate all of your quick response to bringing solution to my plight... I have been able to do as said and it went well successfully.

[Charles-Tim]

I appreciate all of your quick response to bringing solution to my plight... I have been able to do as said and it went well successfully.

But never leave your coins on exchanges, the keys (the private key) are not yours, it belong to the exchange, there can be a time of inconveniences like wallet maintenance, freezing of accounts or coins, an exchange can be hacked etc. if you are not using the money for trading, or converting it to fiat for spending, better to send it back to a noncustodial wallet, like Electrum.

Also as nc50lc commented, exchanges do charge fixed fee for withdrawal, which is far higher than the transaction fee while using noncustodial wallet, so using lower fee is about noncustodial wallet (I mean when sending on noncustodial wallet), not when sending on exchanges.

The initial reason those are added is to save fees and time, but given that Bitcoin's optimal fee is small most of the time, those are quite obsolete.

I was thinking it is for the tokenized version of bitcoin (which are altcoins) that are existing, for people to have the withdrawal option too, even ERC20 is not that cheap. Just that Binance and other exchanges do not list them in a way people willl be able to differentiate between the real bitcoin addresses and the altcoins address.

[hosseinimr93]

Take note that by using "BTC(SegWit)" Deposit option in Binance, you wont save any transaction fee on your deposit.

Isn't paying to bech32 addresses slightly cheaper than paying to legacy addresses?
If I am not wrong, with replacing each of legacy outputs with a bech32 output, you reduce the virtual size of your transaction by 3 vbyte.

[Edwardard]

Isn't paying to bech32 addresses slightly cheaper than paying to legacy addresses?

Yes, just wanted to add its around ~16% cheaper fees for native segwit transactions. But only valid if transferring from native segwit to legacy/segwit, not from legacy to segwit as nc50lc already said.
Ref: https://www.makeuseof.com/bitcoin-address-types-explained/

[nc50lc]

Take note that by using "BTC(SegWit)" Deposit option in Binance, you wont save any transaction fee on your deposit.

Isn't paying to bech32 addresses slightly cheaper than paying to legacy addresses?
If I am not wrong, with replacing each of legacy outputs with a bech32 output, you reduce the virtual size of your transaction by 3 vbyte.

Yes, but that size difference is too low to even consider "save on fees" in regards to the selection of deposit option in Binance.
Unlike using SegWit as an input.

[hosseinimr93]

Isn't paying to bech32 addresses slightly cheaper than paying to legacy addresses?

Yes, just wanted to add its around ~16% cheaper fees for native segwit transactions. But only valid if transferring from native segwit to legacy/segwit, not from legacy to segwit as nc50lc already said.

I don't know where the 16% in that article comes from, but that's not true.
The percentage of reduction in transaction fee with the help of using segwit addresses depends on number of inputs and outputs.
In a transaction with 1 input and 1 output, you can decrease the fee by around 42% using bech32 input.
In a transaction with 10 inputs and 1 output, you can decrease the fee by around 52% using bech32 inputs.
In a transaction with 1 input and 10 outputs, you can decrease the fee by around 20% using bech32 input.
(I used bitcoindata.science, the tool created by bitmover for the calculations.)

Using segwit outputs is also effective in reducing transaction fee, but as mentioned by nc50lc above, that's not significant.

[LoyceV]

I want to transfer into my binance account

Before sending any funds to Binance, you should know Binance scams their users when Binance makes a mistake.

The initial reason those are added is to save fees and time

That's quite naive. Binance added their own centralized coin to keep Bitcoin in their possession, and pump their shitcoin to be worth tens of billions. With "wrapped" Bitcoin (which isn't Bitcoin), any lost keys are profit for Binance, instead of a donation to everyone.

TL;DR: There's only one Bitcoin.

[bitmover]

I don't know where the 16% in that article comes from, but that's not true.
The percentage of reduction in transaction fee with the help of using segwit addresses depends on number of inputs and outputs.
In a transaction with 1 input and 1 output, you can decrease the fee by around 42% using bech32 input.
In a transaction with 10 inputs and 1 output, you can decrease the fee by around 52% using bech32 inputs.
In a transaction with 1 input and 10 outputs, you can decrease the fee by around 20% using bech32 input.
(I used bitcoindata.science, the tool created by bitmover for the calculations.)

Using segwit outputs is also effective in reducing transaction fee, but as mentioned by nc50lc above, that's not significant.

Thanks for mentioning my tool. I am remodeling this website and it is good to see what people really use. I will remove unused sessions soon and improve the layout. But i am quite busy with other projects for now.

The more outputs / inputs you have, the more you save when using segwit.

[hZti]

That's quite naive. Binance added their own centralized coin to keep Bitcoin in their possession, and pump their shitcoin to be worth tens of billions. With "wrapped" Bitcoin (which isn't Bitcoin), any lost keys are profit for Binance, instead of a donation to everyone.

TL;DR: There's only one Bitcoin.

Does that mean that Binance can "unwrap" a bitcoin after a specific time, if they feel that the customer does not own the private key to the wrapped bitcoin anymore? I thought this would not be possible, because if it is this would be very unethical as you said in your post.

[LoyceV]

Does that mean that Binance can "unwrap" a bitcoin after a specific time

There's nothing to unwrap, it's only a metaphor (at best).

if they feel that the customer does not own the private key to the wrapped bitcoin anymore?

There are 2 things involved in "WBTC"
A. Bitcoin
B. Something made up by someone who wants to earn money from it.

Ideally, for every B there is a A. And ideally, Binance would give that person A in exchange for B at their request. Until they decide not to. Who wants to be at the mercy of a rich guy who hides his company in the Cayman Islands?
Like anyone else who created altcoins, Binance uses it to earn more Bitcoins. So whenever someone loses some B, it reduces their claim on A and Binance gets richer. In many cases it won't instantly be obvious who loses it, but they can at some point decide that all users have to exchange their B for C, and if they don't do that within x months, B becomes worthless and Binance owns more A!

I thought this would not be possible, because if it is this would be very unethical as you said in your post.

I linked to the topic of Binance literally scamming users. They confiscated all their funds for reasons the user had nothing to do with. They're not running their company based on ethics, it's based on greed.

[stompix]

Does that mean that Binance can "unwrap" a bitcoin after a specific time, if they feel that the customer does not own the private key to the wrapped bitcoin anymore? I thought this would not be possible, because if it is this would be very unethical as you said in your post.

Wrapped, Safu, tokenized all useless words that try to hide reality.
As Loycev said, all those wrapped tokens, coins whatever are just IOU promises, there is no difference between WBTC and Terra, they were both backed by consent that was not in your control, so when the ones really controlling those decide it's time to pull the plug you're left with a coin backed by literally nothing and worth just as much as some moron who has not read the news is willing to pay.
Same for UST, the same for BUSD, same for every coin that promises stability or pegging to a value. If this can't work in the real world with currencies, do you think the likes of CZ or Kwon (ups) can solve it?

As for unethical, should we ask SBF what is considered ethical in the industry?

Back to the matter at hand, if Binance would really care about the fees and about Bitcoin, the order on that list would be a little different right? Not with a fake bitcoin being first and the real Bitcoin second? Or if they wound;t want to trick their customers, they could have simply made a different selection for BNB Bitcoin, whoever wants bitcoin click on Bitcoin and deals with that, the ones that want BNB scam coins click on BNB  and do the deposit from there.

Reminds me of a Simpsons scene, it's like you press to vote with Democrats, and the first option is Bush.