<p>You can’t assume that any given software will be know to go searching for arbitrary encodings of the public key you’re “converting” to. Depending on the wallet software on the other end, your payment will likely to be missed or at worst lost entirely in the case of a hardware security module that can’t be altered. </p>

<p>There's no situation in which you should ever need to be doing this. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-16T15:20:35.593Z
The use case I have is someone using a wallet is asking me to pay them and they only get given the bech32 address.  My wallet does not send to this type of address.  I too therefore was curious if I could convert a bech32 address to a segwit address like 3xxxxx but seems like this bech32 is an incompatible way of sending funds for original style wallets?
sradforth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-16T15:37:20.253Z
You could *send* money like that, but their wallet would never see it. Wallets only know about addresses they've made themselves.
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-11-08T02:50:37.253Z
2019-04-24T09:19:51.630Z
2019-04-24T09:19:51.630Z
Claris
<blockquote>
  <p>Is it safe to receive funds at this <code>1FJJd...</code> address?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Kind of. Your wallet knows the private key that corresponds to that address as it is the same private key for the bech32 address. However it does not necessarily know that it should be looking for coins sent to this address, so any transactions that send coins to that address may not appear in your wallet and thus it will be harder for you to spend those coins.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there a downside to using this rather than Bech32?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I said earlier, your wallet may not know about that address and thus won't track it. Even if it does, it is better to use the Bech32 address as that means that you will be using Segwit. The transaction fees for a spend from a segwit address will be lower than a similar spend from the non-segwit version of that address.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T02:52:10.377Z
"Harder to spend" may translate into "lost" if for example the key is on a hardware device that does not support signing for the converted address type.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T02:52:11.083Z
Also bech32 support is not currently as widespread so it won't be usable in all the same situations as the legacy address
meshcollider
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T13:03:49.907Z
@MeshCollider Yes, this is why I was exploring ways to convert Bech32 address to a form more widely accepted as "valid". Other wallets like Trezor use SegWit embedded into P2SH which works almost everywhere.
Jonathan Cross
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-01T15:11:43.713Z
Isn't the purpose of P2PKH addresses (starting with 1) to inform the software of the `scriptPubKey` used? If I get that correctly, then it would be highly unexpected for a wallet to look for P2PKH-type outputs derived from a bech32 address, as the latter is intended to be used with P2WPKH/P2WSH outputs.
FMCorz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-01T15:45:48.863Z
@FMCorz Yes. But the data encoded in a P2PKH address could be re-encoded as a P2WPKH address. But as you said, wallets won't expect that.
Ava Chow
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-08T02:47:54.223Z
2017-11-08T02:47:54.223Z
Ava Chow
<p>Electrum now generates Bech32 addresses for SegWit wallets.</p>

<p>Example: <code>bc1qnntcclssmtuvfw2te7q49lzvw67cfvpzxger4j</code></p>

<p>Pubkey: <code>023f1b3421c6ae0c1758834d40806c2418194b507be261fa343a0636653f3ec75b</code></p>

<p>If I search for that Bech32 address on btc.com, I get redirected to:
<a href="https://btc.com/1FJJdX5g1DX7FRxJBhJNTDrRjTeihhsJLs" rel="noreferrer">https://btc.com/1FJJdX5g1DX7FRxJBhJNTDrRjTeihhsJLs</a></p>

<p>This <a href="https://altcoin-price.com/tool/pubkey-to-address" rel="noreferrer">pubkey-to-address tool</a> also generates the same address from the above pubkey. </p>

<ol>
<li>Is it safe to receive funds at this <code>1FJJd...</code> address?</li>
<li>Is there a downside to using this rather than Bech32?</li>
</ol>

<electrum><segregated-witness><p2pkh><bech32-address>
Bech32 conversion to legacy P2PKH?
Jonathan Cross
# Bech32 conversion to legacy P2PKH?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-11-08)

Electrum now generates Bech32 addresses for SegWit wallets.

Example: `bc1qnntcclssmtuvfw2te7q49lzvw67cfvpzxger4j`

Pubkey: `023f1b3421c6ae0c1758834d40806c2418194b507be261fa343a0636653f3ec75b`

If I search for that Bech32 address on btc.com, I get redirected to:
<https://btc.com/1FJJdX5g1DX7FRxJBhJNTDrRjTeihhsJLs>

This [pubkey-to-address tool](https://altcoin-price.com/tool/pubkey-to-address) also generates the same address from the above pubkey.

1. Is it safe to receive funds at this `1FJJd...` address?
2. Is there a downside to using this rather than Bech32?

**Tags:** electrum, segregated-witness, p2pkh, bech32-address


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-11-08. Score: 13 | Accepted answer

> Is it safe to receive funds at this `1FJJd...` address?

Kind of. Your wallet knows the private key that corresponds to that address as it is the same private key for the bech32 address. However it does not necessarily know that it should be looking for coins sent to this address, so any transactions that send coins to that address may not appear in your wallet and thus it will be harder for you to spend those coins.

> Is there a downside to using this rather than Bech32?

As I said earlier, your wallet may not know about that address and thus won't track it. Even if it does, it is better to use the Bech32 address as that means that you will be using Segwit. The transaction fees for a spend from a segwit address will be lower than a similar spend from the non-segwit version of that address.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: "Harder to spend" may translate into "lost" if for example the key is on a hardware device that does not support signing for the converted address type.  
> **username_5**: Also bech32 support is not currently as widespread so it won't be usable in all the same situations as the legacy address  
> **username_0**: @MeshCollider Yes, this is why I was exploring ways to convert Bech32 address to a form more widely accepted as "valid". Other wallets like Trezor use SegWit embedded into P2SH which works almost everywhere.  
> **username_6**: Isn't the purpose of P2PKH addresses (starting with 1) to inform the software of the `scriptPubKey` used? If I get that correctly, then it would be highly unexpected for a wallet to look for P2PKH-type outputs derived from a bech32 address, as the latter is intended to be used with P2WPKH/P2WSH outputs.  
> **username_3**: @username_6 Yes. But the data encoded in a P2PKH address could be re-encoded as a P2WPKH address. But as you said, wallets won't expect that.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-11-08. Score: 4

You can’t assume that any given software will be know to go searching for arbitrary encodings of the public key you’re “converting” to. Depending on the wallet software on the other end, your payment will likely to be missed or at worst lost entirely in the case of a hardware security module that can’t be altered.

There's no situation in which you should ever need to be doing this.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The use case I have is someone using a wallet is asking me to pay them and they only get given the bech32 address.  My wallet does not send to this type of address.  I too therefore was curious if I could convert a bech32 address to a segwit address like 3xxxxx but seems like this bech32 is an incompatible way of sending funds for original style wallets?  
> **username_1**: You could *send* money like that, but their wallet would never see it. Wallets only know about addresses they've made themselves.  

---

