<p>So, first of all, the two addresses you show are indeed related. Native segwit (P2WPKH) addresses use a closely related public key hash construction as legacy (P2PKH) addresses, they just use an updated shorthand and a different input script:</p>
<p>The Pay to Public Key Hash script encoded by the legacy address is:</p>
<pre><code>195EP4E7ZPPKFo77ZVFNabgjN2uaViGb2e: 
OP_DUP OP_HASH160 588dd6e32a0082977de6182ba34205999b2b4939 OP_EQUALVERIFY
</code></pre>
<p>While the Pay to Witness Public Key Hash script encoded by the bech32 address is:</p>
<pre><code>bc1qtzxadce2qzpfwl0xrq46xss9nxdjkjfekqvttj 
0 588dd6e32a0082977de6182ba34205999b2b4939
</code></pre>
<p>We can see that both these outputs lock the funds to a public key that hashes to <code>588dd6e32a0082977de6182ba34205999b2b4939</code>.</p>
<p>It follows that the receiver of the funds should be able to recover them, if they can find a way to use the same private key for the different output type.</p>
<p>I can't tell how this situation arose. But it sounds like either the receiver's wallet involved in this transaction provided the wrong address or the sender's wallet converted a payment instruction to a different type. The former would be a bug in your wallet that the wallet provider should address. The latter would be a huge faux-pas by the sender wallet—when you get instructions how to pay someone, you cannot ever make the assumption that the receiver will be fine with a completely different way of getting paid.</p>
<p>Please feel free to point your wallet provider's customer support to this answer if they continue to tell you it's your fault.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-31T14:16:40.457Z
2022-03-31T14:22:38.850Z
2022-03-31T14:22:38.850Z
Murch
<p>Using my bitcoin.com wallet app, I sent $50 in BTC to the address: bc1qtzxadce2qzpfwl0xrq46xss9nxdjkjfekqvttj
This is a transaction done times before and isn't unfamiliar. Yet, this deposit wasn't posting. So upon reviewing the transaction, I found that a completely different address had replaced the pasted &quot;send to&quot; spot. I figured out that the address changed once pasted.
To summarize, I copy and pasted this address: bc1qtzxadce2qzpfwl0xrq46xss9nxdjkjfekqvttj<br />
and ended up with this address: 195EP4E7ZPPKFo77ZVFNabgjN2uaViGb2e
Now here's where it gets even crazier, less than an hour prior, I had done the EXACT same transaction sending $100 and I see in the app my switched bc1qtz...address
is also now the 195E...address. In fact, ALL previous transactions where I sent to bc1qtz... were.
But unlike this one $50 transaction, ALL the other deposits went through! I even made screen recordings of me sending way smaller amounts to the same location and again, address would be changed but my deposit amount went quickly through.
I have pretty strong security and have done many virus scans and file checking but nothing found.  Please help me with this mystery! As a side note, my coins are all just sitting there unspent in this dead end 195E... address. Amount showing around $49 after fees.
Here's link to failed $50 deposit:</p>
<p><a href="https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/6ff9c5ef9260fe91a8da9ce2e33ed670bba106febdf1751aeba39263d651cca7?from=bitcoin.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/6ff9c5ef9260fe91a8da9ce2e33ed670bba106febdf1751aeba39263d651cca7?from=bitcoin.com</a></p>
<p>Here's link to successful $100 deposit:
<a href="https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b0119701a3f962de22441fdaef2464716cdea12e741e83d408ed44a680e92d7d?from=bitcoin.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b0119701a3f962de22441fdaef2464716cdea12e741e83d408ed44a680e92d7d?from=bitcoin.com</a>
Please remember that you will see the receiver address correct here, but in the app the address shows 195E....
Any further screenshots, recordings or proof can be provided if needed.</p>
<hr />
<p>Follow-up:</p>
<p>For my particular situation it is not a hack.  It is the Bitcoin.com wallet app for Android itself. They don't fully support bc1 addresses, therefore the app auto changes bc1 recipients to  legacy addresses. In my case the 195E address. So unfortunately, when I hit send for this particular transaction, the app glitched and where it would change to a legacy but still send the original bc1 to the Blockchain, it instead sent the legacy address to the Blockchain. And so I guess my coins will sit there forever because no one owns that address.
And it's bullsh*t that they don't have to credit a thing, when the error has been proven to come from their end.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-28T07:01:57.317Z
Related: bitcoin(dot)com support page recently claims they support sending to segwit addresses: https://support.bitcoin.com/en/articles/3919131-can-i-send-to-a-bc1-address
chytrik
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-31T14:21:40.350Z
From what I understand, you sent from a Bitcoin•com wallet, but do you know what wallet was used on the receiver side?
Murch
<transactions><wallet><address><debugging>
Another similar experience to "a Bug in copying BTC address"
Ra2377ven
# Another similar experience to "a Bug in copying BTC address"

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-03-27)

Using my bitcoin.com wallet app, I sent $50 in BTC to the address: bc1qtzxadce2qzpfwl0xrq46xss9nxdjkjfekqvttj
This is a transaction done times before and isn't unfamiliar. Yet, this deposit wasn't posting. So upon reviewing the transaction, I found that a completely different address had replaced the pasted "send to" spot. I figured out that the address changed once pasted.
To summarize, I copy and pasted this address: bc1qtzxadce2qzpfwl0xrq46xss9nxdjkjfekqvttj  
and ended up with this address: 195EP4E7ZPPKFo77ZVFNabgjN2uaViGb2e
Now here's where it gets even crazier, less than an hour prior, I had done the EXACT same transaction sending $100 and I see in the app my switched bc1qtz...address
is also now the 195E...address. In fact, ALL previous transactions where I sent to bc1qtz... were.
But unlike this one $50 transaction, ALL the other deposits went through! I even made screen recordings of me sending way smaller amounts to the same location and again, address would be changed but my deposit amount went quickly through.
I have pretty strong security and have done many virus scans and file checking but nothing found. Please help me with this mystery! As a side note, my coins are all just sitting there unspent in this dead end 195E... address. Amount showing around $49 after fees.
Here's link to failed $50 deposit:

<https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/6ff9c5ef9260fe91a8da9ce2e33ed670bba106febdf1751aeba39263d651cca7?from=bitcoin.com>

Here's link to successful $100 deposit:
<https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b0119701a3f962de22441fdaef2464716cdea12e741e83d408ed44a680e92d7d?from=bitcoin.com>
Please remember that you will see the receiver address correct here, but in the app the address shows 195E....
Any further screenshots, recordings or proof can be provided if needed.

---

Follow-up:

For my particular situation it is not a hack. It is the Bitcoin.com wallet app for Android itself. They don't fully support bc1 addresses, therefore the app auto changes bc1 recipients to legacy addresses. In my case the 195E address. So unfortunately, when I hit send for this particular transaction, the app glitched and where it would change to a legacy but still send the original bc1 to the Blockchain, it instead sent the legacy address to the Blockchain. And so I guess my coins will sit there forever because no one owns that address.
And it's bullsh\*t that they don't have to credit a thing, when the error has been proven to come from their end.

**Tags:** transactions, wallet, address, debugging

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: bitcoin(dot)com support page recently claims they support sending to segwit addresses: https://support.bitcoin.com/en/articles/3919131-can-i-send-to-a-bc1-address  
> **username_2**: From what I understand, you sent from a Bitcoin•com wallet, but do you know what wallet was used on the receiver side?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-03-31. Score: 2

So, first of all, the two addresses you show are indeed related. Native segwit (P2WPKH) addresses use a closely related public key hash construction as legacy (P2PKH) addresses, they just use an updated shorthand and a different input script:

The Pay to Public Key Hash script encoded by the legacy address is:

```
195EP4E7ZPPKFo77ZVFNabgjN2uaViGb2e: 
OP_DUP OP_HASH160 588dd6e32a0082977de6182ba34205999b2b4939 OP_EQUALVERIFY

```

While the Pay to Witness Public Key Hash script encoded by the bech32 address is:

```
bc1qtzxadce2qzpfwl0xrq46xss9nxdjkjfekqvttj 
0 588dd6e32a0082977de6182ba34205999b2b4939

```

We can see that both these outputs lock the funds to a public key that hashes to `588dd6e32a0082977de6182ba34205999b2b4939`.

It follows that the receiver of the funds should be able to recover them, if they can find a way to use the same private key for the different output type.

I can't tell how this situation arose. But it sounds like either the receiver's wallet involved in this transaction provided the wrong address or the sender's wallet converted a payment instruction to a different type. The former would be a bug in your wallet that the wallet provider should address. The latter would be a huge faux-pas by the sender wallet—when you get instructions how to pay someone, you cannot ever make the assumption that the receiver will be fine with a completely different way of getting paid.

Please feel free to point your wallet provider's customer support to this answer if they continue to tell you it's your fault.


---

