Well basically no campaign managers in his right mind would ever use a Web wallet such as Blockchain .
Using segwit is a good idea with a ledger wallet and then using it with electrum.  However the participants don’t have to have segwit addresses as well.

 As long as the sender is using a compatible address the transaction is considered Segwit And has drastically lower fees

Perhaps lead by example. 1YAXCNpdeEBBBdzPqBqTEhT6e9czV5Y5f, your Jetwin payment address is neither nested Segwit or bech32.


Because not everyone wants to use Electrum. Some might prefer to keep their funds on a phone, some might have a cold storage address that they don't want to regenerate so that it's bech32, and some might want to sell off their Bitcoin once they get paid directly. There's no point requiring bech32. Also, I believe all exchanges support SegWit addresses, given that the nested version is backwards compatible and all exchanges should support multisig, and bech32 *should* work unless the exchange has some really weird custom wallet. In the ChipMixer campaign I manage, out of over 50 users, only one is getting payments to bech32.

It's also possible to generate "amazing and unique" bech32 vanity addresses (user nullius has 3NULL3ZCUXr7RDLxXeLPDMZDZYxuaYkCnG as a nested SegWit address and bc1qcash96s5jqppzsp8hy8swkggf7f6agex98an7h as a bech32 vanity.

Are you sure about this? From what i know both sending and receiving addresses have to be segwit compatible to be considered as segwit transaction with lower size + lower fee. 

Thanks for that link, Light. That only shows that campaign managers themselves should start using Segwit enabled wallets to lower their fees and to make their transactions hopefully confirm faster.

It also encourages more use of the technology as more and more campaign managers follow.

Transactions will actually not confirm any faster with SegWit. The signature portion of transactions will be discounted by 75%, however all else being equal, a SW transaction with the same discounted fee rate will confirm in the same amount of time a transaction composed with non-SW inputs with the same discounted fee rate.

It is also actually not possible to tell if an address is a SW address until it spends funds, so it would not be possible to force users to use SW addresses.

Can i ask ? This segwit will caused bitcoin fall down? Thanks.

Thanks Lauda, I am happy that you are. Changes should start from within the community however small. But we should let our voices be heard and we should not allow ourselves to be bullied by the "Bitcoin oligarchy".



Why not start using this, https://segwitaddress.org/.

You can also require your participants to start using Segwit addresses. Fees will be cheaper for you and for them.

well, according to this,  it seems like trezor supports segwit.

Yes, I have ledger nano and it has an option to choose whether Legacy or Segwit so it does [image]. And which can be seen here too.  

Not needed. You can calculate this yourself. Fees for SegWit TXs: size (excl. witness) + witness size/4 = total size * fee-rate. Fees for legacy TXs: size * fee-rate. For a regular 1 in, two outs transaction of ~226 bytes * 409 sat/byte =
for a transaction of 226 bytes: 0.00092434.
A SW (1 in two outs) TX would be ~180 bytes * 409/sat/bytes: 0.00073620 BTC.

---

The more SW inputs you have (as opposed to legacy ones), the savings are greater. Let's see what happens when consolidating.
Legacy - 20 in, 1 out: ~3004 bytes, 0.01228636 BTC (178.6$).
SW - 20 in, 1 out: ~2046 bytes, 0.00836814 BTC (121.4$).