Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

He hasn't told any lies; this debate has been going on for years and has always been known.

In fact, Peter Wuille was heavily criticized for this.

The thing is, taproot was sold as a gateway to improvements to protect against quantum computing, and since then no progress has been made, while Signal and Simplex have gotten their act together.

By the way, I shouldn't have responded to you because you started out being disrespectful, you idiot.
Avatar
epsql 1mo ago

I had no idea that taproot was presented, among other things, as a potential improvement with respect to QC threats. How could this have been given the exposed pubkey? Am I missing something either in my understanding of how taproot works or more generally?

Also what debate are you referring to? I'd like to know more, thanks

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

03
Anony 1mo ago

Me too. I was surprised to read Taproot exposes public keys again. Where's this debate?

Avatar
Cyph3rp9nk 1mo ago

It has always been this way. Search for "quantum taproot" on Twitter and you will see comments from over two years ago regarding this matter.

03
Anony 1mo ago

Nah, I meant: I thought we had transitioned to using key-hashes for initial commitments, but with taproot we're back to immediately exposing public keys.