My 2 big reasons why we should use SegWit addresses instead of Legacy addresses

[Phu Juck]

SegWit (Segregated Witness) was introduced in 2017 for Bitcoin. It was activated as a soft fork according to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 148 (BIP 148), which enforced SegWit to be activated. SegWit aimed to improve scalability, reduce transaction fees, and fix transaction malleability issues, in addition to more smaller benefits.

Let’s have a look today at why SegWit is a good update for Bitcoin because Segregated Witness (SegWit) addresses for Bitcoin are offering several advantages over legacy addresses:


Native and nested SegWit

Today, we know about native and nested SegWit addresses. While nested SegWit only offers few advantages, native SegWit is what was introduced in 2017, giving us full benefits from SegWit transactions:

________	__________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________
1…	Legacy-Address	P2PKH (pay to public key hash)
3…	Multisignature-Address	P2SH (pay to script hash)
________	__________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________
3…	nested SegWit-Address	P2WPKH-P2SH (pay to witness public key hash - pay to script hash) / P2WSH-P2SH (pay to witness script hash - pay to script hash)
________	__________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________
bc1q…	native SegWit-Address (bech32)	P2WPKH-bech32 (pay to witness public key hash) / P2WSH-bech32 (pay to witness script hash)
bc1p…	Taproot-Address	P2TR-bech32m (pay to tap root)

1. SegWit transaction are cheapest

SegWit offers us compared to Legacy or nested SegWit really low transaction fees and it will reduce our costs paid for transaction fees a lot.
Here’s an overview how large transactions of each type are:  

Type	|Input  vbyte	|Output vbyte	|transaction vbyte
Taproot	|57,5	|43	|111
Native SegWit	|68	|31	|109.5
Nested SegWit	|93	|32	|134
Nested SegWit	|140	|34	|192

For each input, we will save additional transaction fees.

SegWit transactions are simply smaller in size compared to legacy transactions because all witness data (signatures) is separated from transaction data. As a result, we get a lower fee per transaction vbyte.




2. Increased Block Capacity

Bitcoin has a limit of transactions in terms of transaction size for each Block: a limited number of transactions can only be fitted into each Bitcoin block, limiting Bitcoin’s capacity in terms of  transaction size per new block.  
SegWit allows more transactions to be fitted into each block. By separating all witness data, SegWit effectively decreases size limits for each transaction and effectively increases Bitcoin’s block size limit, which helps to process more transactions per block.  
So, SegWit actively helps to reduce congestion in Bitcoin’s mempool.

Overall, using SegWit addresses will help us to reduce transaction costs, have a better network performance and future-proofing for additional improvements and features for Bitcoin.


Which ones are your favorite reasons to use Bitcoin native SegWit addresses?




Sources

Pay-to-taproot (P2TR) transaction fee
Why people should be using SegWit addresses
Minimizing bitcoin transaction fee
Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs!

[Zaguru12]

Bitcoin has a limit of transactions in terms of transaction size for each Block: a limited number of transactions can only be fitted into each Bitcoin block, limiting Bitcoin’s capacity in terms of  transaction size per new block.  
SegWit allows more transactions to be fitted into each block. By separating all witness data, SegWit effectively decreases size limits for each transaction and effectively increases Bitcoin’s block size limit, which helps to process more transactions per block.  
So, SegWit actively helps to reduce congestion in Bitcoin’s mempool.

Overall, using SegWit addresses will help us to reduce transaction costs, have a better network performance and future-proofing for additional improvements and features for Bitcoin.

In a more clearer way SegWit transactions aren’t necessarily smaller in size than legacy transactions. The both address format transactions are same size in byte, the difference is that the way the transaction is calculated is changed from size to weight, it is this SegWit transactions that is smaller in weight than legacy becaus legacy transactions is measured to weigh 4 units/byte and segwit weighs 1 unit/byte, and that’s why the corresponding transaction fees are smaller.

The data too is not removed or separated entirely from the transaction like some people mistakenly assume. It is just moved to witness which is a new field in segwit formats

[Felicity_Tide]

in as much as you want to pass a very helpful information, you should know that cross posting is not accepted.

Here is your cross posting on a local board : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5501147.0

Highly ranked members/mod(achow101) would decide from here.

My apologies. I thought only translated post on local boards are exempted as the rule states. I never knew same post written in plain English can also be posted both on local and other boards.

[Phu Juck]

In as much as you want to pass a very helpful information, you should know that cross posting is not accepted.

Here is your cross posting on a local board : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5501147.0

Local boards are exempt from such a rule.

Highly ranked members/mod(@achow101) would decide from here.

Yes, let moderators decide.

[Forsyth Jones]

I think I've been using Segwit bech32 since 2018. I still used legacy for a while, in this year I tested bech32m, but I didn't see much of an advantage in terms of transaction weight/reduced fee.

As bech32m is taproot, perhaps its advantage is to aggregate several signatures into one, for example, if you receive several entries at a single address, perhaps when it comes to spending, it makes up for using bech32m. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[hosseinimr93]

t is this SegWit transactions that is smaller in weight than legacy becaus legacy transactions is measured to weigh 4 units/byte and segwit weighs 1 unit/byte, and that’s why the corresponding transaction fees are smaller.

It's not that legacy transactions data weigh 4 times segwit transactions data. It's only the witness data that is counted differently.
The regular data of a segwit transaction is counted as legacy transactions and the witness data is counted as one quarter the size of the regular data.

[OcTradism]

I think I've been using Segwit bech32 since 2018. I still used legacy for a while, in this year I tested bech32m, but I didn't see much of an advantage in terms of transaction weight/reduced fee.

As bech32m is taproot, perhaps its advantage is to aggregate several signatures into one, for example, if you receive several entries at a single address, perhaps when it comes to spending, it makes up for using bech32m. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Difference between transactions with Native Segwit bech32 bc1q and with Taproot bech32m bc1p is inputs and outputs.

With inputs, each Taproot input is 10.5 vbytes smaller than Native Segwit input but with each Taproot output, it is 12 vbytes bigger than a Native Segwit output.

So cheaper or more expensive, it depends on inputs and outputs of your transactions in Native Segwit or in Taproot.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/tools/calc-size/

[dkbit98]

Which ones are your favorite reasons to use Bitcoin native SegWit addresses?

There is no much difference compared to other address formats, but I guess with new format there is a bit smaller transaction fees.
Nobody in 2024 should be generating new Legacy addresses anymore and many bitcoin wallets removed this option (from GUI) like Electrum wallet.
However, it's perfectly fine to still use legacy addresses if you have coins stored a long time as a cold storage and you don't want to move them to new addresses.

Real advancement we have with Silent Payments (BIP352) that have much better privacy, but it's not yet supported in all wallets, and it's still in beta.
Silent Payment addresses all start with sp1.

[Wind_FURY]

My 2 big reasons why we should use SegWit addresses instead of Legacy addresses

1. SegWit transaction are cheapest

2. Increased Block Capacity

But perhaps for HODLing, it's probably better to merely use Legacy addresses. Why? Because they're technically the safest. The other address types are Soft Forks, and the Core Developers are human - there could be bugs. Plus because HODLing is merely for the sake of the HODL, you don't need those extra features in Segwit or Taproot.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

But perhaps for HODLing, it's probably better to merely use Legacy addresses. Why? Because they're technically the safest. The other address types are Soft Forks, and the Core Developers are human - there could be bugs. Plus because HODLing is merely for the sake of the HODL, you don't need those extra features in Segwit or Taproot.

It is merely Conspiracy theory with some foundations to back behind but if bugs can cause bitcoin loss stored in addresses with Segwit or Taproot, many people already lost their bitcoins.

If the theory is bug can cause it, Bitcoin Legacy addresses can be compromised too and with more developer contributions, more decentralized nowadays, my theory is it can be safer than in the past with limited developers contributed to Bitcoin developments.

If I have big fund in bitcoin, I will decentralize my fund in Legacy, Segwit addresses.

[promise444c5]

My 2 big reasons why we should use SegWit addresses instead of Legacy addresses

1. SegWit transaction are cheapest

2. Increased Block Capacity

But perhaps for HODLing, it's probably better to merely use Legacy addresses. Why? Because they're technically the safest. The other address types are Soft Forks, and the Core Developers are human - there could be bugs. Plus because HODLing is merely for the sake of the HODL, you don't need those extra features in Segwit or Taproot.

For Holders using lumpsum maybe... but  for DCA investors, it might be bad interm of fees even if they will be consolidating their inputs from time to time.
Everything needs an upgrade as it becomes widely accepted, for example all versions  of programming Languages were  subjected to upgrade to form a better version ...
Development in Bitcoin space  brought about better versions like the Segwit era... as times goes on,much advance stuff will continue to add up ... There might even come a time when bitcoin Legacy address will be converted to new ones in such a way that it's compatible with old Legacy address  without having to make a transaction  to the new one (just a thesis  don'tknow if this might be possible)I.e automatically given new address + their old address (transaction will only reveal the new address)

[Yamane_Keto]

An additional advantage of SegWit is that if your wallet is not able to generate SegWit addresses, it is best to avoid using it as the code has not been modified in a while or the developers need to have a real reason to update to SegWit addresses.

[PX-Z]

Actually, everything about using segwit address are all about the pros/advantages than using the legacy one in terms of bitcoin wallet address. So there's no other valid excuse that is reasonable and should be considered for not using segwit address

[mu_enrico]

Yep, for me (1) it's cheaper than legacy, and (2) it's already supported everywhere. It's not like a few years ago when I couldn't withdraw to bc1 addresses. Nowadays, I rarely see wallets with legacy addresses as their default.

The reason someone still uses the 1-addresses is probably that they already had them pre-fork and want to keep the coins unsplit.

[Wind_FURY]

But perhaps for HODLing, it's probably better to merely use Legacy addresses. Why? Because they're technically the safest. The other address types are Soft Forks, and the Core Developers are human - there could be bugs. Plus because HODLing is merely for the sake of the HODL, you don't need those extra features in Segwit or Taproot.

It is merely Conspiracy theory with some foundations to back behind but if bugs can cause bitcoin loss stored in addresses with Segwit or Taproot, many people already lost their bitcoins.

If the theory is bug can cause it, Bitcoin Legacy addresses can be compromised too and with more developer contributions, more decentralized nowadays, my theory is it can be safer than in the past with limited developers contributed to Bitcoin developments.

If I have big fund in bitcoin, I will decentralize my fund in Legacy, Segwit addresses.

I'm not talking about loss of funds, just mere bugs that might complicate the way you HODL Bitcoin and that could force you to transfer your coins back to legacy addresses. Plus although this is very VERY improbable, but because Segwit was a Soft Fork, there could be a debate that it's possible that Bitcoin could be changed back to the way it was before Segwit addresses. That's probably only going to happen if a super exploit of some sort was found - although VERY unlikely there's one.

[Porfirii]

Actually, everything about using segwit address are all about the pros/advantages than using the legacy one in terms of bitcoin wallet address. So there's no other valid excuse that is reasonable and should be considered for not using segwit address

Yep, for me (1) it's cheaper than legacy, and (2) it's already supported everywhere. It's not like a few years ago when I couldn't withdraw to bc1 addresses. Nowadays, I rarely see wallets with legacy addresses as their default.

The reason someone still uses the 1-addresses is probably that they already had them pre-fork and want to keep the coins unsplit.

There is still another good reason to use legacy addresses, and it is because of vanity addresses. We may want to use an address starting by 1 because we like the way it looks. And who knows, maybe in the future legacy addresses with transactions from certain datas or whatever may become collectibles. So in general segwit is better, but we shouldn't demonize legacy completely.

[Husna QA]

There is still another good reason to use legacy addresses, and it is because of vanity addresses. -snip-

I don't think vanity addresses are unique to Legacy addresses, as they can also be created from SegWit addresses. Here are some links to tools that can be used for this purpose:

- VanitySearch (https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch)
- Vanitybech (https://github.com/MakisChristou/vanitybech)
- https://github.com/nym-zone/segvan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2934774.0)

[mr.mister]

I am still on legacy because it has stood the test of time. It has been reliable and effective. I don't move my coins often, other than to consolidate to one UXTO when fees are cheap. I am sure in the future I will move to segwit, address that start with 3s, then to native segwit (bc1q)  a few years later, and so on. This is the strategy that I deploy.

[satscraper]

I am sure in the future I will move to segwit, address that start with 3s, then to native segwit (bc1q)  a few years later, and so on. This is the strategy that I deploy.

Strange scheme for me. Why  not to move to bc1q addresses at once and escape the nested segwit stage?  You would save some of your stash by doing so. This would be natural for the penny-savers, unless they wanna the extra  payments to miners to appraise their job . Any plot from your part here?

Among all others mentioned in this thread advantages  the native sigwit addresses (opposite to legacy ones ) use the small character set which eliminates error at transferring them viva voice.

[mr.mister]

I am sure in the future I will move to segwit, address that start with 3s, then to native segwit (bc1q)  a few years later, and so on. This is the strategy that I deploy.

Strange scheme for me. Why  not to move to bc1q addresses at once and escape the nested segwit stage?  You would save some of your stash by doing so. This would be natural for the penny-savers, unless they wanna the extra  payments to miners to appraise their job . Any plot from your part here?

Among all others mentioned in this thread advantages  the native sigwit addresses (opposite to legacy ones ) use the small character set which eliminates error at transferring them viva voice.

As I tried to imply in my comment, I am not concerned with saving pennies. I am more concerned with security. I will move from one protocol to the next in the order that they have been around from oldest to newest. That is my strategy.