Will Legacy Adresses be supported forever

[Vampobit]

Today, we have seen a transition from Legacy Addresses, to Segwit, to Native Segwit and eventually to Taproot.

Do you think that legacy addresses will stop being supported ?

In fact, if you own a private key that leads to a legacy address, you will always have access to this address. However, if, hypothetically there is no wallet to facilitate your transaction-signing process, what will happen?

[1714765517]

1714765517

[1714765517]

1714765517

[1714765517]

1714765517

[DooMAD]

However, if, hypothetically there is no wallet to facilitate your transaction-signing process, what will happen?

How is that supposed to happen, exactly?  I still use plenty of general software which was released before Bitcoin even existed.  Wallet software won't simply vanish if people find it useful, make backups of it and continue to use and distribute it.

Hell, I'm sure I've got backups of relatively useless software that I don't plan on ever using again.  There's still a MultiBit installer kicking around one of my drives here somewhere.  It certainly wouldn't be advisable to use, but it would still (just about) work if I was left with no other option.  

Plus it would be pretty reckless of devs to disable older formats, because some people may still hold funds in legacy addresses.  I honestly don't see it being an issue.

[jackg]

I don't think there's a reason it'd be removed from Bitcoin core (and if it was, someone else would probably want to encode for it too - even if someone did it for a hobby project).

There's a lot of niche things quite a few wallets support that I think would go first (like mini private keys and p2pk - which I assume is still possible).

[Vampobit]

However, if, hypothetically there is no wallet to facilitate your transaction-signing process, what will happen?

How is that supposed to happen, exactly?  I still use plenty of software which was released before Bitcoin even existed.  Wallet software won't simply vanish if people find it useful, make backups of it and continue to use and distribute it.

Hell, I'm sure I've got backups of relatively useless software that I don't plan on ever using again.  There's still a MultiBit installer kicking around one of my drives here somewhere.  It certainly wouldn't be advisable to use, but it would still (just about) work if I was left with no other option.

Yes, I agree with you. However, I observe a mass adoption of the newer address types. In fact I have a PK that gives me access to a legacy address, that's why I felt the need to ask.

I don't think there's a reason it'd be removed from Bitcoin core (and if it was, someone else would probably want to encode for it too - even if someone did it for a hobby project).

There's a lot of niche things quite a few wallets support that I think would go first (like mini private keys and p2pk - which I assume is still possible).

To be honest, now that I think about it more clearly, I don't see the reason why they would stop supporting legacy addresses. I mean, even if they are deprecated, they still don't provoke any issue to the software developers, nor to the product they produce. They could potentially just exist.

[TribalBob]

I never thought it would disappear, because instead of the first address it was the initial key for one of our wallets, and in the end it could be used in other wallets
and it happens to altcoin wallets too doesn't it

[glendall]

I don't think there is a concrete problem, with the inherited address from which the private key is still the same, because basically system updates often occur in all wallets, until now the signer is still safe in my opinion,

[Hispo]

I don't think legacy addresses will get removed, at least not from Bitcoin Core. It could happen on particular wallets (those developed by third parties) but in general there is no good enough reasons to stop supporting legacy formats.

I am personally comfortable with the current approach: implementing more efficient formats and let people to slowly migrate to those with time.
Also, Legacy addresses have historical and cultural significance for the Bitcoin community, in my opinion.

[Darker45]

The options would only increase over time, but I guess the support for legacy address will remain. What's the cost of not removing it? What's the cost of removing it? There's probably not much reason to remove it. Although a bit discouraged nowadays, and probably very few would be using it in the decades to come, there will surely remain wallets that offer legacy support. As a matter of fact, there might also come a time in the unforeseeable future when both SegWit and Native SegWit addresses would no longer be the most popular addresses, but support for them might still remain.

[NotATether]

Bitcoin Core developers never remove stuff from the protocol. They can disable stuff, like the alert messages, so while legacy addresses won't be outlawed (as in Bcash?), the most likely scenario is Bitcoin Core gets its legacy address walled generation code removed instead, so from the principle wallet. But that's still not from the protocol.

[mk4]

The great thing about Bitcoin is that it's so simple and is always(I'm pretty certain, but someone far more technically-gifted please confirm this for me) backwards-compatible. Chances are, if you held bitcoin on a wallet/address that you used in 2009, that you can still move out the funds in the future.

[TravelMug]

Today, we have seen a transition from Legacy Addresses, to Segwit, to Native Segwit and eventually to Taproot.

Do you think that legacy addresses will stop being supported ?

In fact, if you own a private key that leads to a legacy address, you will always have access to this address. However, if, hypothetically there is no wallet to facilitate your transaction-signing process, what will happen?

Nah, I don't think that legacy addresses will be outdated or being removed by Bitcoin core. And that is the beauty of  the software that Satoshi developed, it's backward compatibility.

Maybe people are seldomly using it right now, but it doesn't mean it's going to be obsolete.

And for the majority here, some of us have still this legacy addresses.

[Leviathan.007]

Today, we have seen a transition from Legacy Addresses, to Segwit, to Native Segwit and eventually to Taproot.

Do you think that legacy addresses will stop being supported ?

In fact, if you own a private key that leads to a legacy address, you will always have access to this address. However, if, hypothetically there is no wallet to facilitate your transaction-signing process, what will happen?

I don't see any reason for the removal of the old and legacy address, I mean if you are talking about the total deletion of these addresses that are not going to happen, and even if it happens there will be many unhappy legacy bitcoin owners they prefer to use their old address, however, they can maybe have the plan to transfer all the funds from legacy wallets to segwit wallets and this some be more like adoption, but still, that's not something we can talk about it anytime soon because of many users using these addresses.

[hd49728]

If you have private keys, you can sign your transactions and if your transaction fee for miners are good enough, they will confirm your transactions.

Bitcoin transactions can be from personal wallets to personal wallets, personal wallets to exchange wallets. You don't always need exchange support to move your bitcoins if it is from personal wallet to another personal wallet.

For receiving bitcoin, it works for all types of wallet addresses but to withdraw, you must get support from exchanges. If you make a transaction to deposit to your account on one exchange, and they say you did not receive your bitcoin because they don't support that address type, they lie and try to scam you.

[dansus021]

How is that supposed to happen, exactly?  I still use plenty of general software which was released before Bitcoin even existed.  Wallet software won't simply vanish if people find it useful, make backups of it and continue to use and distribute it.

Hell, I'm sure I've got backups of relatively useless software that I don't plan on ever using again.  There's still a MultiBit installer kicking around one of my drives here somewhere.  It certainly wouldn't be advisable to use, but it would still (just about) work if I was left with no other option.  

Plus it would be pretty reckless of devs to disable older formats, because some people may still hold funds in legacy addresses.  I honestly don't see it being an issue.

Agreed in fact the Legacy address is the true original address and it will supported for an infinite time. I know that lightning network and bech32 address is more fast and efficient but still legacy address still be there oh and other fact that most of rich list holder is still using legacy address

[hd49728]

Agreed in fact the Legacy address is the true original address and it will supported for an infinite time. I know that lightning network and bech32 address is more fast and efficient but still legacy address still be there oh and other fact that most of rich list holder is still using legacy address

You won't lose your bitcoin if you store it in wallets with Legacy addresses. If exchanges no longer support it (but I don't believe they will do that), you can send your bitcoin to another wallet that support bech32 addresses and can send it to exchanges. No problem after that.

With private key, you can import it to have public addresses from Legacy, Native Segwit to Nested Segwit. Import, sweep private keys can help.

[pooya87]

The only thing that would happen in the future about any of the older script types is that the wallets will stop generating them by default and possibly even remove the user-friendly option to generate an older script type wallet. Something like what Electrum did where their default wallet is a SegWit wallet instead of letting you go back to legacy that easily.

But they cannot and should not remove the capability of signing (or verifying) transactions that are spending older types of outputs or create such script types. That's because they ARE part of the Bitcoin protocol and can not be removed.

[Edwardard]

If exchanges no longer support it (but I don't believe they will do that),

AFAIK, bitmex used to support old type of BTC addresses for deposits but now they got bech32 only as the option. Older addresses for deposits have been removed. But they support withdrawal to all types and  still charge 0.0002 BTC for withdrawals (dunno whats the point here since bech32 withdrawal fees should be a lot lower).
However with self-custodial wallets like mycelium, I got a bech32 and a legacy address with the same priv key. Legacy will remain when you control the keys.

[Kakmakr]

Well, it is one thing saying that it might happen.... and a whole other story to convince "full nodes" to accept it. If it does happen... a full fork needs to happen, so you will get the same amount of coins that you had on the legacy addresses. (So in theory .. you will not lose any coins, but the value of the new tokens will be questionable)

I personally think we should only "force" this issue, if some security exploit threatens Legacy addresses. (Super strong technology that might crack the encryption) 

[franky1]

many wallets can easily stop supporting legacy

some already are making it a headache just to default set the wallet to use legacy import/"change" addresses
some make it difficult to just import a key and it display the legacy balance because the default is to convert key to a segwit address for balance display of key(thus showing nothing)

having the rigmarole of having to "describe" the priv to pub setting. can easily lead to non support of certain pub settings with just a couple lines of code that doesnt require a censuses event to implement

as someone highlighted. it ends up with people hoping they kept around an old wallet to have the legacy easily usable

just take a look at the number of wallets available that just importkey and a p2pk is displayed.. .. not many left now
many still convert to p2pkh but majority lately default build privkeys into segwit display addresses, or where the wallet defaults to build a segwit wallet before the user has even decided what key types they want to use. and then when its time to want to use legacy, have to go through a process to force it

devs have already cludgy coded a 4x premium cost into using legacy (falsely promoted as a "segwit discount")
so they are doing all they can to try swaying(difficult, non default, costly) people away from using legacy

[pooya87]

devs have already cludgy coded a 4x premium cost into using legacy (falsely promoted as a "segwit discount")

Just because SegWit transactions are cheaper to send, it doesn't mean the legacy transactions cost has increased! The fee you pay for a legacy transaction is the same exact thing as it has been for many years before SegWit was activated.
It is aptly promoted as "SegWit discount" because SegWit transactions cost less.