12-21-2022, 12:46 PM
Over one year after the Taproot update and 2 years after the Bech32m update, many of
<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zrdc5t/over_one_year_after_the_taproot_update_and_2/"> <img src="https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/s4lS8bm_VBjL7xBnrKuR5jO6qzWvwWSWaG1_LjJp2XE.jpg" alt="Over one year after the Taproot update and 2 years after the Bech32m update, many of the largest Bitcoin exchanges (including Binance, Coinbase, Gemini, and Strike) still can't send to Segwit v1 or Taproot addresses. Only 1% of addresses are using the Bech32m format introduced 2 years ago." title="Over one year after the Taproot update and 2 years after the Bech32m update, many of the largest Bitcoin exchanges (including Binance, Coinbase, Gemini, and Strike) still can't send to Segwit v1 or Taproot addresses. Only 1% of addresses are using the Bech32m format introduced 2 years ago." /> </a> </td><td> <!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I was looking at the <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption#Exchanges">Bech32m adoption charts</a>, which fixes a minor checksum vulnerability in the Bech32 addresses from the Segwit soft fork in 2017.</p> <p><strong>Most of the largest exchanges still can't recognize Segwit v1 or Taproot addresses, and can't send to them.</strong></p> <p>Here's the transaction breakdown on the Bitcoin network by combining <a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-types-by-count/">Chart 1</a> and <a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-segwit-distribution/">Chart 2</a>:</p> <ul> <li>Legacy: 26%</li> <li>Nested Segwit (within Legacy): 39%</li> <li>Segwit v0: 34%</li> <li><strong>Segwit v1 and Taproot: only 1%</strong></li> </ul> <p><strong>Soft forks have their advantages, but apparently they also significantly slow down adoption for updates.</strong></p> <p>​</p> <p><a href="https://preview.redd.it/mokrwg36b77a1.png?width=227&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c3f241e36d01eb6d2f90d719619a18fef538b02">https://preview.redd.it/mokrwg36b77a1.png?width=227&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c3f241e36d01eb6d2f90d719619a18fef538b02</a></p> <p><strong>Only 1% of addresses are using the new Bech32m format from the update 2 years ago</strong>. So much for Taproot adoption and fixing known vulnerabilities.</p> <p>The recent Ethereum merge and Cardano Vasil hard forks went well. Basically when the devs voted on the green light for mainnet, within a month, all nodes were updated. It was a clean update of the entire network.</p> <p>In comparison, the Bitcoin network is a mismatch of all sorts of different formats. All the legacy addresses are less efficient than the newer ones and cost more fees. And yet they're still widely used today.</p> <p><strong>It's hard to keep track of all the different UTXO address formats still in use</strong>:</p> <ul> <li>P2PK (legacy)</li> <li>P2MS (legacy)</li> <li>P2PKH (legacy)</li> <li>P2SH (legacy)</li> <li>P2WPKH in P2SH (semi-legacy)</li> <li>P2WSH in P2SH (semi-legacy)</li> <li>P2WPKH</li> <li>P2WSH</li> <li>P2TR</li> </ul> <p>The <a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-and-outputs-p2pkh/">P2PKH legacy transactions</a> haven't even declined for the past year. Bitcoin's optional soft forks are really widespread adoption for newer updates.</p> <p><strong>For comparison, EVM blockchains just have 1 type of address format</strong>. And if you have an account on one EVM blockchain, that address is instantly usable on every other EVM blockchain (e.g. Ethereum, Avalanche C-Chain, BSC, Polygon, Moonbeam, most Cosmos blockchains).</p> </div><!-- SC_ON --> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Maleficent_Plankton"> /u/Maleficent_Plankton </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zrdc5t/over_one_year_after_the_taproot_update_and_2/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zrdc5t/over_one_year_after_the_taproot_update_and_2/">[comments]</a></span> </td></tr></table>
<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zrdc5t/over_one_year_after_the_taproot_update_and_2/"> <img src="https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/s4lS8bm_VBjL7xBnrKuR5jO6qzWvwWSWaG1_LjJp2XE.jpg" alt="Over one year after the Taproot update and 2 years after the Bech32m update, many of the largest Bitcoin exchanges (including Binance, Coinbase, Gemini, and Strike) still can't send to Segwit v1 or Taproot addresses. Only 1% of addresses are using the Bech32m format introduced 2 years ago." title="Over one year after the Taproot update and 2 years after the Bech32m update, many of the largest Bitcoin exchanges (including Binance, Coinbase, Gemini, and Strike) still can't send to Segwit v1 or Taproot addresses. Only 1% of addresses are using the Bech32m format introduced 2 years ago." /> </a> </td><td> <!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I was looking at the <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption#Exchanges">Bech32m adoption charts</a>, which fixes a minor checksum vulnerability in the Bech32 addresses from the Segwit soft fork in 2017.</p> <p><strong>Most of the largest exchanges still can't recognize Segwit v1 or Taproot addresses, and can't send to them.</strong></p> <p>Here's the transaction breakdown on the Bitcoin network by combining <a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-types-by-count/">Chart 1</a> and <a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-segwit-distribution/">Chart 2</a>:</p> <ul> <li>Legacy: 26%</li> <li>Nested Segwit (within Legacy): 39%</li> <li>Segwit v0: 34%</li> <li><strong>Segwit v1 and Taproot: only 1%</strong></li> </ul> <p><strong>Soft forks have their advantages, but apparently they also significantly slow down adoption for updates.</strong></p> <p>​</p> <p><a href="https://preview.redd.it/mokrwg36b77a1.png?width=227&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c3f241e36d01eb6d2f90d719619a18fef538b02">https://preview.redd.it/mokrwg36b77a1.png?width=227&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c3f241e36d01eb6d2f90d719619a18fef538b02</a></p> <p><strong>Only 1% of addresses are using the new Bech32m format from the update 2 years ago</strong>. So much for Taproot adoption and fixing known vulnerabilities.</p> <p>The recent Ethereum merge and Cardano Vasil hard forks went well. Basically when the devs voted on the green light for mainnet, within a month, all nodes were updated. It was a clean update of the entire network.</p> <p>In comparison, the Bitcoin network is a mismatch of all sorts of different formats. All the legacy addresses are less efficient than the newer ones and cost more fees. And yet they're still widely used today.</p> <p><strong>It's hard to keep track of all the different UTXO address formats still in use</strong>:</p> <ul> <li>P2PK (legacy)</li> <li>P2MS (legacy)</li> <li>P2PKH (legacy)</li> <li>P2SH (legacy)</li> <li>P2WPKH in P2SH (semi-legacy)</li> <li>P2WSH in P2SH (semi-legacy)</li> <li>P2WPKH</li> <li>P2WSH</li> <li>P2TR</li> </ul> <p>The <a href="https://transactionfee.info/charts/inputs-and-outputs-p2pkh/">P2PKH legacy transactions</a> haven't even declined for the past year. Bitcoin's optional soft forks are really widespread adoption for newer updates.</p> <p><strong>For comparison, EVM blockchains just have 1 type of address format</strong>. And if you have an account on one EVM blockchain, that address is instantly usable on every other EVM blockchain (e.g. Ethereum, Avalanche C-Chain, BSC, Polygon, Moonbeam, most Cosmos blockchains).</p> </div><!-- SC_ON --> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Maleficent_Plankton"> /u/Maleficent_Plankton </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zrdc5t/over_one_year_after_the_taproot_update_and_2/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zrdc5t/over_one_year_after_the_taproot_update_and_2/">[comments]</a></span> </td></tr></table>