Quote from: d_eddie on May 08, 2019, 07:51:52 PM

Quote from: Biodom on May 08, 2019, 07:13:07 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on May 08, 2019, 01:47:34 PM

I read the above and still don't get the problem. What type of address was needed before sending to Bech32 and why was it unspendable? And how can it be unspendable if it is sent back to the company's wallet and thus "proves" it's an inside job?

My understanding is that if you send coins from address starting with '1' (legacy) to bech 32 address (starting with 'bc1'), then you might have difficulty spending the coins, although I am not 100% sure because Coinomi claims that in their wallet you can "upgrade" legacy account to bech32.
In any case, if you send from '1 to '3' first, then to 'bc1', it should be OK.
Read here:

https://coinomi.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000009746-what-are-default-compatibility-and-legacy-addresses-all-about-segwit-

Re sending back at Binance-it is a puzzle and if true (I did not check), then the whole thing is definitely their own error.
That guy at binance...I would not listen to one word outta his mouth one way or another any more.

The way I understand it, the problem isn't with the address, but with the wallet software. Not all wallets deal bith 'bc1' (bech32) addresses yet. Bech32 is supposed to be the new universal format after the segwit fork. Legacy (B2SH) non-segwit addresses begin with '1'. Legacy (B2SH) multi-sig addresses begin with '3'.

'1' addresses can only receive funds in non-segwit (old-style) transactions. '3' and 'bc1' can receive funds in segwit transactions too.

Hmm.. so if the above applies then the software must be able to pick the right transaction style. If it doesn't then it's broken software so to speak.