Quote from: Rahar02 on November 04, 2017, 11:07:20 AM

It's a good development for electrum, but address start with bc1*** is a native segwit standard?

There are two segwit address types (with 2 subtypes each): native segwit format, draft BIP173-encoded starting with bc1, and one embedded in the P2SH address (starting with 3).
You can create both in Electrum but the P2SH-embedded require either specifying BIP39 seed (with BIP49 m/49'/0'/0' path) or a hardware wallet. You cannot create such a wallet with the native Electrum seed only classic or pure segwit.

See, also my description of all nuances here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2353665.msg24018980#msg24018980

Native segwit addresses are probably not a good idea for a general user yet (but maybe excellent for, e.g. exchange hot wallet) but P2SH embedded are fine as long as you can generate them.

Quote

I don't know about it, and doesn't have to start with "3" right? As long as it's segwit address, doesn't matter for me.
But, regarding segwit address cause low fees for bitcoin transaction, is it really worth? I mean, we pay very low fees such $0,4 but miners tend to pick higher fees to included into next block, especially for current market transactions, over 54,000 unconfirmed transactions.

It may not be a big deal for a typical user (but 30-40% savings are also nice) but for exchanges that have a lot of large multi-signature P2SH transactions, the savings are more than 50%. I'm surprised the adoption is so slow because, say, Bitpay or Coinbase would save millions easily (last 24h the whole network paid miners about $2M-worth BTC in fees), especially since it will decongest the mempool so the savings would be more than just savings in the size of the transactions. But they apparently prefer to complain instead of doing their part.