pull down to refresh

Yes, wallet default44.1%
Yes, I go out of my way to use them17.6%
No, my wallet doesn't support20.6%
I don't go on chain much17.6%
34 votes \ poll ended

Why do you ask?

reply

Considering making Taproot addresses default in Liana Wallet (currently user has to choose).

reply

from now on, all new txs must be taproot.

reply

That is, I should move my utxo's saved from bc1 to directions Taproot?

reply

bc1q (segwit) is still OK
bc1p (taproot) is desired.
https://darth-coin.github.io/wallets/move-btc-taproot-address-en.html

bc1 are ok, but I still see people with legacy addresses... losers.

reply

I read that taproot could be more vulnerable to Quantum Computer because they expose the public key while the other sha256 hash it. They argue that since QC are not good at hacking hashes this could protect the others address type till you spend them so they could be attacked only in the confirmation phase while for P2TR you have a long exposure of your public key in the block chain. I do not think this is a problem right now but I would like to hear some opinions of the great minds present out here ;-)

reply
could be more vulnerable to Quantum Computer

sell all your BTC right now ! Is literally pointless to hold BTC if you believe that crap shit.
We all gonna die!

https://video.nostr.build/8345cd80358ff40077d46408074bfadd1b4053ca7e306d6b487fcba14cf13a03.mp4

Only time I see legacy addresses are for multisig these days

reply

if somebody still use a legacy address, it means they didn't even got doubled their BTC stash in the 2017 fork... LOL such losers.

reply

I always assumed there was a technical or economical reason all multisig I've encountered so far seemed to use "3xxx" nested segwit (instead of native segwit or Taproot)

is that not the case?

Then again I haven't rabbitholed into multisig proper yet

why?

reply
  • greatly increase the efficiency of the Bitcoin network
  • reduces transaction sizes and increases throughput during high-stress periods - less fees
  • increases privacy and security via transaction and signature compression
  • allows for native smart contract implementation - better LN channels
  • more seamless support for new future LN implementations

... and some more but don't come to my mind rn

reply

Yes for privacy, but sometimes hurts to pay slightly higher fees than with segwit.

reply

My cold wallet does not support taproot, but at least one of my hot (phone, Lightning) wallets does. Maybe someday I'll switch my cold storage over to it -- probably whenever I get my Lightning node up and running.

reply

Considering that quantum computing could have an easier time attacking naked pubkeys on-chain (Taproot) than more ephemerally exposed pubkeys in the mempool (spending from Segwit), I am hesitant to use Taproot.

reply

Where's the hell no option? Still hoping it gets rolled back to own to script kiddies. 🍿

reply

You’re so edgy

reply

I do my best

reply

You’re doing great

reply

Good point, should have had a "No, I don't like taproot" option.

reply

All joking aside there's a case to be made not to use newer address types for cold storage, heck exchanges still aren't using segwit in many cases.

reply

Not yet. Still mostly using SegWit

reply

x2 ✌️🤠

reply

I don't even know what taproot addresses are ... 🫣 think I should be scolded for that.

reply

My wallet has this feature

reply

I still use Segwit

reply

I started not long ago and I'm learning little by little. Taproot isn't mentioned in the videos I find to introduce new Bitcoiners (in my language), unfortunately. As soon as I read about it and looked into it more, I set up my cold wallet using that standard and already transferred my sats there.

reply

Yes, I started using taproot recently.

reply