schnorr signatures – Taproot, potential quantum bug, and basic clarification
Right here in search of info. I’ve 4 questions marked with parens
Would love some clarification pertaining to the Mark Friedenbach article:
The purpose of competition with Mark appears to be the concept of the area financial savings for the N-N Musig2 everybody indicators/glad path being embedded into the the foundation of the MAST/Taproot?
(1) please right if I am mistaken about the way in which I am describing this.
I did see Pieter’s presentation at Bitdevs from some time again reference, “plain pubkey safety mannequin in thoughts” for taproot. However, it wasn’t obvious that this may hypothetically make it quantum weak,.. as Mark’s article says, “a unadorned secp256k1 pubkey on chain on the time the output is created which has absolute spend authority for the underlying bitcoins”.
(2) Would love for somebody to rebut or confirm this declare.
From what I’ve gathered.. Taproot is a mixture of Schnorr, MAST, Musig, and many others.. however the actual, small piece of all of this, which is “Taproot”, is defined by 3 fellows as:
- Greg, “a particular delegating CHECKSIG which I name Taproot.”
- Poelstra, “trick to cover a dedication inside a pubkey”
- Pieter, “pay to a script pubkey of taproot EC level P.”
(3) Are these correct concise snippets for the crux of Taproot, which is we do not want a separate department for the N-N everybody agrees spend?
(4) Additionally, is
OP_CHECKSIGADD the now realized “CHECKSIG” greg mentions within the O.G. taproot publish