<p>As of November 2017, only Electrum wallet and blockchain.info are major services which support bech32 address format. A number of services use P2SH wrapped segwit scripts which is easier for backwards compatibility for the moment. This is expected due to the bech32 BIP (<a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BIP 173</a>) not being formalised at this point in time. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T03:50:08.607Z
So do you recommend not to use bech32 addresses at the moment as they are not backwards compatible?
Patoshi パトシ
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T03:53:43.337Z
I'd suggest that services show the bech32 encoding first, and a legacy P2SH encapsulated version for those that don't support it yet. It's the only way that adoption will happen, otherwise you end up with a chicken and egg problem.
Claris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T03:56:00.623Z
How does a legacy P2SH encapsulated version look?
Patoshi パトシ
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T03:56:39.023Z
It's indistinguishable from any other P2SH address until spending.
Claris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T01:05:01.357Z
2017-11-08T01:30:53.620Z
2017-11-08T01:30:53.620Z
Claris
<p>Are any of the cryptocurrency exchanges using native segwit (bc1) addresses for any of its users?</p>

<bech32-address><segregated-witness>
Which crypto currency exchanges are using segwit (bc1) addresses for its users?
Patoshi パトシ
# Which crypto currency exchanges are using segwit (bc1) addresses for its users?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-11-06)

Are any of the cryptocurrency exchanges using native segwit (bc1) addresses for any of its users?

**Tags:** bech32-address, segregated-witness


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-11-08. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

As of November 2017, only Electrum wallet and blockchain.info are major services which support bech32 address format. A number of services use P2SH wrapped segwit scripts which is easier for backwards compatibility for the moment. This is expected due to the bech32 BIP ([BIP 173](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki)) not being formalised at this point in time.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So do you recommend not to use bech32 addresses at the moment as they are not backwards compatible?  
> **username_1**: I'd suggest that services show the bech32 encoding first, and a legacy P2SH encapsulated version for those that don't support it yet. It's the only way that adoption will happen, otherwise you end up with a chicken and egg problem.  
> **username_0**: How does a legacy P2SH encapsulated version look?  
> **username_1**: It's indistinguishable from any other P2SH address until spending.  

---

