The following content was written by thejaytiesto on April 05, 2018, 04:05:57 PM in the thread -addresstype=. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)
Testing out the latest Bitcoin Core 0.16 now that I got some free time, and it seems it defaults to the nested format, then to the “bech32” format if the box is clicked within the “Receive” tab.
I was only able to use the legacy format when adding -addresstype=legacy to a shortcut, kind of annoying workaround. Is there any way to generate legacy addresses and segwit addresses at will without having to open and close the client? I can’t find anything within the command line.
The following content was written by achow101 on April 05, 2018, 04:48:55 PM in the thread -addresstype=. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)
Bitcoin Core 0.16 intentionally makes it more difficult to generate legacy addresses because we want to move towards segwit by default (particularly bech32). Thus there isn’t really an easy way to make legacy addresses from within the GUI.
However you can use the debug console (or RPC interface, i.e. bitcoin-cli) to generate legacy addresses when -addresstype is not set to legacy. getnewaddress has a new address type parameter that lets you specify what type of address to generate.
The following content was written by RGBKey on April 06, 2018, 02:25:48 AM in the thread -addresstype=. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)
Adding to achow’s comment, the point of upgrading software is to make it better. Bitcoin Core 0.16 is an upgrade, because it provides you with addresses that use up less space and therefore are cheaper to transact with, and also keep blocks smaller. That’s a straight upgrade, and there’s hardly any downside to it.
The following content was written by HCP on April 06, 2018, 04:23:14 AM in the thread -addresstype=. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)
#devilsAdvocateSeriously tho, it is indeed a catch-22 situation… services won’t start using bech32 until there is widespread adoption among users, users won’t start using bech32 until there is widespread adoption among services
Personally, I commend the Bitcoin Core team for forging ahead and “encouraging” the migration to SegWit and bech32.
The following content was written by RGBKey on April 06, 2018, 04:59:04 AM in the thread -addresstype=. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)
#devilsAdvocateSeriously tho, it is indeed a catch-22 situation… services won’t start using bech32 until there is widespread adoption among users, users won’t start using bech32 until there is widespread adoption among services
Personally, I commend the Bitcoin Core team for forging ahead and “encouraging” the migration to SegWit and bech32.
I’m talking about segwit. Wrapped P2WKH addresses are still backwards compatible and are described by what I said above. Doesn’t have to be bech32, but I have seen an increasing amount of adoption recently.
The following content was written by bob123 on April 06, 2018, 11:28:49 AM in the thread -addresstype=. All content is owned by the author of the bitcointalk.org post. (original)
Segwit nested into P2SH was thought as a way of transition from legacy to segwit (bech32).
While nested segwit does reduce the transaction weight, it is still not as efficient as bech32.
Changing user habits is a tedious process. Moving from legacy to nested segwit is definetely a step in the right direction.
But the goal should be to get widespread bech32 adoption. It doesn’t just improve the user experience, but also contributes to the overall network health.
@OP:
Is there a particular reason you want to use an legacy addresse?
General rejection towards segwit?
