Explication :
https://medium.com/@SDWouters/why-schnorr-signatures-will-help-solve-2-of-bitcoins-biggest-problems-today-9b7718e7861c1er problème rêglé par cet outil : la taille des transactions qui proviennent du couplage de plusieurs sommes stockées.
All this signature data increases the transaction size, and thus the transaction fee that is paid to the miners with it. You are claiming space that could be used for other transactions, which means you must pay to take their place.
At the end of the day, if it is just one person sending that transaction from multiple sources, there should be some way to do so with just one signature, right? This is what Schnorr signatures allow us to do.
One transaction has one signature
Estimates are that this upgrade would reduce the use of storage and bandwidth by at least 25%. To point out the obvious: that is a huge efficiency gain.
2ème problème ciblé : le SPAM de la MEMpool.
To push people into increasing the blocksize, the attackers made it expensive to send bitcoin transactions for weeks in a row, by using up as much transaction space as possible through all kinds of constructions.
One of their methods was to include dozens of signatures in transactions by constantly sending transactions from many sources.
[...]
Fortunately for us, Schnorr signatures would help combat this kind of spam attack.
If we only have one signature per transaction, more transactions will fit into blocks and a spammer would need to send far more transactions in competition with more people, and thus likely spend more money to take up the same transaction space. Signatures are often the largest individual part of a transaction, so the attacker would be disadvantaged.
