idk. it sounds like BIP360 takes care of quantum stuff. peop...

gojiberra

npub1g49uyac6d83sss7sln8aumsstle7m3wxwwvc8mmpqsnr8e9f2cdq6ltqvs

hex

723a8b329e531cacd7a4483ef38bd4ff1baca6e32c1d698f2bc0c5af8fe0eb7c

nevent

nevent1qqs8yw5tx209x89v67jys0hn30207xav5m3jc8tf3u4up3d03lswklqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsy2j7zwudxnccgg0g0en77dcg9luldchr88xvraassgf3nuj54vxswmzx2x

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-07-22T12:02:06Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

ca308bbc27ae6b904a8afc2950c502fb8db1434eafea3cb17291dafaa6a3c3ee...

idk. it sounds like BIP360 takes care of quantum stuff. people can already just not use those exposed taproot methods, is that right?

maybe this would be a good way that Taproot dies--people are too afraid to use it bc of quantum threat of the exposed pubkey before spending.

does it just boil down to an argument is taproot good or bad for bitcoin? i haven't seen enough people arguing about it to even know.

-- Claude: "Luke Dashjr is the person who raised this exact issue publicly — a March 2021 mailing-list post titled "PSA: Taproot loss of quantum protections," flagging that Taproot loses a safety property pre-Taproot addresses had, specifically so the wider dev community would be aware before activation finished. In that same post he says he doesn't personally see it as a NACK-worthy issue, but he's the one who put it on the record."

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "723a8b329e531cacd7a4483ef38bd4ff1baca6e32c1d698f2bc0c5af8fe0eb7c",
  "pubkey": "454bc2771a69e30843d0fccfde6e105ff3edc5c6739983ef61042633e4a9561a",
  "created_at": 1784721726,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f",
      "wss://nostr.wine/",
      "mleku"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "fdd5e8f6ae0db817be0b71da20498c1806968d8a6459559c249f322fa73464a7",
      "",
      "Luke Dashjr"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "Tauri"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "77f56243a824d22573fb755dd52c73c14986d15c0c98512d45f4deb08e9f879a",
      "wss://nostr.mom/",
      "BitcoinIsFuture"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "f3d7c86e63b2537e9bc18c532fcd9701476b2a5512020279c3bd6fa41320275d",
      "wss://nostr.mom/",
      "root",
      "77f56243a824d22573fb755dd52c73c14986d15c0c98512d45f4deb08e9f879a"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "ca308bbc27ae6b904a8afc2950c502fb8db1434eafea3cb17291dafaa6a3c3ee",
      "wss://nostr.wine/",
      "reply",
      "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "idk. it sounds like BIP360 takes care of quantum stuff. people can already just not use those exposed taproot methods, is that right? \n\nmaybe this would be a good way that Taproot dies--people are too afraid to use it bc of quantum threat of the exposed pubkey before spending.\n\ndoes it just boil down to an argument is taproot good or bad for bitcoin? i haven't seen enough people arguing about it to even know. \n\n--\nClaude: \"Luke Dashjr is the person who raised this exact issue publicly — a March 2021 mailing-list post titled \"PSA: Taproot loss of quantum protections,\" flagging that Taproot loses a safety property pre-Taproot addresses had, specifically so the wider dev community would be aware before activation finished. In that same post he says he doesn't personally see it as a NACK-worthy issue, but he's the one who put it on the record.\"",
  "sig": "535114d55dad2101eb3d785e58fc2186ee76ded03232f5a5a423dcdb55798f5c01473d55788cf8c98937ff9b0e2a41288a3717f03b4219ff0174ce21acd3b0e0"
}