Thanks for the heads up
Initially I was of the opinion that bech32 addresses were all the same. Anyways I have a few questions to help me better understand this entire concept.
Overall which of the bech32 addresses are best in terms of minimizing transaction fees? Because from what Charles-Tim explained he made mention of the fact that bech32 version 0 is more economical when it comes to transactions with Large outputs. However I don't really get how bech32m version 1 has an edge over the bech32 version 0 address when it comes to consolidation.
Actually, the fee for a transaction is calculated on the base of data being transmitted in a transaction, and segwit v0 has a small address while Segwit V1 has a larger address, so less data means less fee and more data means more fee. So when we have large outputs, segwit 0 is beneficial because the overall combined address is smaller in comparison to legacy (segwit V1) which is why the fee will be lower.
And talking about why Segwit v1 is better in consolidation, first we should not whats consolidation, its like combining all the small UTXO into one, like on Binance exchange we have small unspendable tokens and we convert them to bnb and then use them to pay the fee, same in here, we can combine any size of UTXO into one and by leveraging the compactness of the locking system of Taproot, size of the tx decreases in consolidation scenario and thus the fees decreases. CMIIW.