How does segwit compare to native segwit in the context of digital currencies?

3 answers

• Alexander AlonsoJul 28, 2022 · 3 years ago
  Segwit and native segwit are both solutions to address the scalability issues of digital currencies. Segwit, short for segregated witness, separates transaction signatures from the transaction data, allowing for more transactions to be included in each block. Native segwit, also known as bech32 addresses, further optimizes the transaction size by using a different address format. Native segwit addresses start with 'bc1' and are more space-efficient compared to segwit addresses that start with '3'. Both segwit and native segwit improve transaction throughput and reduce fees, but native segwit offers slightly better efficiency and lower fees due to the smaller transaction size.
  684

  342
• Kelvin Adi SaputraAug 05, 2020 · 5 years ago
  Segwit and native segwit are two different implementations of the same concept - separating transaction signatures from the transaction data. While segwit was introduced first and is widely supported by digital currency wallets and exchanges, native segwit is a newer and more efficient version. Native segwit addresses have a different format and are more space-efficient, resulting in lower transaction fees. However, not all wallets and exchanges support native segwit yet, so it's important to check compatibility before using native segwit addresses.
  555

  185
• Gottlieb MccartyMar 01, 2023 · 2 years ago
  Segwit and native segwit are both important developments in the world of digital currencies. Segwit was introduced as a soft fork upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol, while native segwit is a further improvement on the original concept. Native segwit addresses have a more efficient structure, allowing for smaller transaction sizes and lower fees. However, it's worth noting that not all wallets and exchanges have implemented support for native segwit yet. As the adoption of native segwit increases, we can expect to see even greater benefits in terms of scalability and cost-effectiveness for digital currency transactions.
  623

  156