user48278: To receive funds, I was thinking of giving a user the option of displaying two QR codes: 

Legacy - p2phk e.g. 1AKDDsfTh8uY4X3ppy1m7jw1fVMBSMkzjP
Compatibility - p2sh(p2wpkh) e.g. 34nSkinWC9rDDJiUY438qQN1JHmGqBHGW7

Is it safe to only give them the option of receiving to a "compatibility" address?

user48884: 
Is it safe to only give them the option of receiving to a "compatibility" address?

Yes. All modern wallet software understand P2SH and can create transactions that send to such addresses.

user52021: Displaying two would be justified if you were asking about a BC1 p2wpkh vs a 3xxx p2sh(p2wpkh) because not everything supports BC1 but its pretty good to use when supported.
Displaying two isn't useful between p2pkh/p2sh as you've asked about because p2sh is supported everywhere and many wallets and services have used p2sh exclusively for a long time.
Supporting plain p2pkh is not something I'd recommend a new wallet bother doing. That development and testing effort would better be spent on newer functionality.

48278: <p>To receive funds, I was thinking of giving a user the option of displaying two QR codes: </p>

<ol>
<li>Legacy - <code>p2phk</code> e.g. <code>1AKDDsfTh8uY4X3ppy1m7jw1fVMBSMkzjP</code></li>
<li>Compatibility - <code>p2sh(p2wpkh)</code> e.g. <code>34nSkinWC9rDDJiUY438qQN1JHmGqBHGW7</code></li>
</ol>

<p>Is it safe to only give them the option of receiving to a "compatibility" address?</p>
 48884: <blockquote>
  <p>Is it safe to only give them the option of receiving to a "compatibility" address?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. All modern wallet software understand P2SH and can create transactions that send to such addresses.</p>
 52021: <p>Displaying two would be justified if you were asking about a BC1 p2wpkh vs a 3xxx p2sh(p2wpkh) because not everything supports BC1 but its pretty good to use when supported.</p>

<p>Displaying two isn't useful between p2pkh/p2sh as you've asked about because p2sh is supported everywhere and many wallets and services have used p2sh exclusively for a long time.</p>

<p>Supporting plain p2pkh is not something I'd recommend a new wallet bother doing. That development and testing effort would better be spent on newer functionality.</p>
