There is a sort of logic to that, I suppose. A bit fatalistic and shortsighted perhaps. And I suppose I should fork bitcoin and start over with a new chain where all spends require a hash/premimage reveal as well as a signature.
It wouldn’t have taken much work to make an opt-in key pubkey construction that signaled no keypath spend to the verifier.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
My argument to him was “if we need most people to switch to taproot to increase anonymity set via keypath spends, won’t the fear of quantum hinder adoption due to taproot being p2pk!?”
he said the inflight case of p2pkh is no different, but i disagreed, inflight spends that reveal pubkey would be harder to attack than p2pk taproot just sitting onchain.
in the case where satoshis coins are stolen, we could at least recover over time in principle with quantum secure outputs and getting people to move their coins over time.
Its cool people are thinking about this more seriously now even though my concerns were dismissed 6 years ago 🥲