Author: Jeremy 2021-03-15 22:40:07
Published on: 2021-03-15T22:40:07+00:00
In a recent bitcoin-dev mailing list, Luke Dashjr shared his concern that Taproot loses an important safety protection against quantum. While he does not see it as a reason to NACK Taproot, he wants to make sure the wider community is aware of this tradeoff. Before Taproot, it was possible for the network to "pause" while a full quantum-safe fix is developed and then resume transacting. With Taproot, if QC becomes a reality before having a full quantum-safe solution, it could become an unrecoverable situation. Luke also pointed out that there is no storage benefit gained from Taproot's proposed features to make use of the raw keys being public prior to spending. These features can be implemented with hashed keys as well, but it would use significantly more CPU time and bandwidth between private parties. However, at worst, it would create an incentive for more people to use their own full node, which is a good thing. Mark also made some points in response to Pieter's argument on the security of Bitcoin.While a hash-based address remains as best practice, the percentage of bitcoins affected by reuse can be shrunk through social efforts that discourage address use. When quantum does compromise neglected or abandoned/lost coins, it can be seen as equivalent to Bitcoin mining. However, according to Matt Corallo, Bitcoin has been beating that drum for at least nine years and still has not solved the issue. Additionally, one entity would be able to steal the entire block of supply quickly instead of slow process and significant cost in the form of electricity.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T19:32:02.911879+00:00