pull down to refresh

Why not keep bitcoin in taproot addresses, what's the story there?
You'll have to ask a Taproot enjoooyer why they don't walk the walk... I can only speculate.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @nout 9h
Oh, so your point is that there are not many taproot addresses with notable bitcoin amounts?
reply
... Or even a material amount across all addresses total.
Proponents would seem to be either afraid of using it, or lied about their urgent use-cases all along.
On a purely relative basis, a proponents burden of proof is that they're no less "safe" than address types with a longer track record... But they won't put any skin in the game on their experiment.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @nout 6h
I guess I'm special. It's been quite long time since I last used anything onchain that's not taproot. The only non-taproot is when using lightning.
(just to highlight for other readers - Taproot is now 10% by output value and 20% by output count)
reply
Could go all-in with Taproot Channels... why the hesitation?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @nout 6h
Simple Taproot Channels are just being developed, there's no actual prod solution yet. Acinq is making the most progress here from what I can tell.
reply
77 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 5h
there's no actual prod solution yet
All my LN channels are STC (where is possible with the peer) from long time ago. And are perfectly fine.
Even chantools is supporting them now.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 2h
Yeah, I realized this below too. Brainfart on my side.
LND has had them since v17
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 6h
I completely forgot that LND actually did them. Well, so I think I'll be on taproot channels soon :)