BIP-0360 and what it says about Taproot improvements
 | I am currently studying Taproot and see its benefits about the application of Schnorr Signature scheme, i.e. key aggregation. I just understood that there are 2 spending paths of pay-to-taproot (P2TR), the key path, which in many cases takes advantage of the possibility to aggregate signatures. Then the alternative spending path: script path. There's also the advantage of having the same address length, which makes, single sig, MuSig or other complicated addresses indistinguishable. Better for privacy. BIP-0360 proposes the implementation of pay-to-merkle root (P2MR), which is the use of only the script path, essentially. And it was done due to P2TR being vulnerable to long exposure attack. Bummer! So, how can we take advantage of the use of Schnorr signature scheme moving forward? How about those who don't actually use MuSig2 and other complexities, creating a single sig wallet address only? Are they just better off avoiding P2TR then? Are there developers working to still implement Schnorr signature scheme for single key wallets, in a way less vulnerable to the long exposure attack highlighted by BIP-0360? [link] [comments] |
