Taproot proposal

[fxsniper]

Did Taproot decrease lower the fees?

I think bitcoin now still high fee, if Taproot make fee to low is will better and very great to use often

Just as ETFbitcoin explained, it depends.

You can try to make use of the transaction size or weight tools calculator to calculate legacy, nested segwit, native segwit and taproot transaction fee, you can also make use of the public key per input and signature per input to calculate P2SH multisig transactions. If used correctly, you will be able to know the differences in vbytes of each which will determine how transaction fee can be.

I do not have to tell you how legacy address transaction fee will be almost twice that of native segwit addresses and as native segwit transactions have the lowest fee for now, so I will be comparing native segwit transactions with that of taproot.

If you check the transaction vsizes or vbytes of both native segwit and taproot, they are almost the same, but segwit is slightly lower which can be very insignificant. Which means for transaction that require 1 public key, the transaction fee will be almost the same for both native segwit and taproot transactions.

But taproot make use of schnorr signature to make multisig transactions indistinguishable from transactions that require just only 1 public key (normal bitcoin transactions). Multisig transaction fee is higher than normal single wallet transactions, the higher the number of public key required in a transaction, the higher the transaction fee. If segwit transaction is low, but the more the the public key still required for a transaction, the higher the fee, but the fee will be much lower if compared to legacy addresses, but taproot makes the multisig transactions indistinguishable by making use of key aggregation in which the transaction will look like single payment wallet. Which means, increase in the number of public key needed in a transaction still will require the same amount of transaction fee as that of single payment wallet.

Which means taproot reduces the fee of multisig wallets, and making its transaction indistinguishable from other Bitcoin transactions.

Thank you
yes, I use  legacy address , that make fee feel high
if use segwit addresses send, when sent will get lower fee right?
and in case if use segwit addresses for receive , that will help sender to paid fee lower too or not?

[Charles-Tim]

yes, I use  legacy address , that make fee feel high
if use segwit addresses send, when sent will get lower fee right?
and in case if use segwit addresses for receive , that will help sender to paid fee lower too or not?

If using native segwit instead of legacy address for transaction

• There will be 42% fee reduction for 1 input 2 output
• There will be 50% fee reduction for 10 input 2 output
• There can still be up to 52% reduction as the number of input increase

You can read this to know more about how to minimize Bitcoin transaction fee.

Could someone help me to figure out the benefits of taproot for those who don't use multisig transactions? For all I know there will be  no difference for them  in transactions' confidentiality   or in the cost for trx. Only those users who use multisig transactions  will feel the difference in that.  Correct me if I'm wrong with my assumption.

1. Increasing privacy
2. Blockchain data bulid up will be reduced if compared to recent multisig
4. Non-malleability, ECDSA signature malleability was addressed in BIP62
5. MuSig, that can make private smart contracts outside of the blockchain possible
6. Creating way for generalized taproot (G'root) which would be a transition from key aggregation to cross-input, making CoinJoin possible (but not sure or certain this will be allowed).

[Charles-Tim]

My initial question was focused solely on transaction signed with the single private key.

Never mind me generalizing the importance of taproot. In lowering transaction fee, taproot will focus on key aggregation in a way to favour multisig transactions, making it not distinguishable and with low fee as I explained above. As I calculated its transaction weight with that of segwit, there was only slight difference if comparing it with segwit single payment wallet.

[nibor]

Now we just need Binance Pool! (And the testing pools to signal on all bocks).

So looking positive for period 3.... so Mid June....

One block from Binance! So we have just enough pools to activate in the next period.

We just need all the pools who have signalled with one or more blocks to be singling 100% of the time (and a bit of luck) and will activate in mid June.

So now likely that Speedy Trial will be a success.

[Wind_FURY]

Are you OK if miners won’t signal for the upgrade?

We aren't facing any kind of deadline after which bitcoin ceases to exist if it hasn't upgraded yet! We are also just in the second week after the release of v. 0.21.1 and I'd rather everyone upgraded naturally specially miners who run modified software not just bitcoin core as is.

OK, plus the upgrade is not facing fierce resistance from the mining cartel. You’re right, if everyone is cooperative, the network should do a regular Miner Activated Soft Fork, and minimize the risks.

[JayJuanGee]

Are you OK if miners won’t signal for the upgrade?

We aren't facing any kind of deadline after which bitcoin ceases to exist if it hasn't upgraded yet! We are also just in the second week after the release of v. 0.21.1 and I'd rather everyone upgraded naturally specially miners who run modified software not just bitcoin core as is.

OK, plus the upgrade is not facing fierce resistance from the mining cartel. You’re right, if everyone is cooperative, the network should do a regular Miner Activated Soft Fork, and minimize the risks.

Cartel surely does not seem to be a correct word to describe bitcoin mining.. even though there seemed to have been some common interest (resistance) in the 2017 forkening drama.. but even then the factual play out of those events do not really seem to rise to the level of cartel then, and maybe even less so now.

cartel just seems like a misleading term that exaggerates and hardly describes with very much accuracy.

[nibor]

One block from Binance! So we have just enough pools to activate in the next period.

1st signalling block from BTC.TOP. So now there is a clear margin of over 90% of hash power that has voted in favour.

So mid June looking highly likely assuming all pools who have signalled once start signalling with all their blocks before end of May.


Wonder if that will help Bitcoin regain its dominance - as fallen to 40% recently. As a successful soft fork shows current governance processes are at least functional!

[fillippone]

Taproot won’t be activated in this period.



We all knew that, but now it is official.
Support is growing amongst miners, and the hash power of pools that signalled activation in at least one block is now well above 90%.
Sound promising.

[acquafredda]

Taproot won’t be activated in this period.



We all knew that, but now it is official.
Support is growing amongst miners, and the hash power of pools that signalled activation in at least one block is now well above 90%.
Sound promising.

Yes bro, they are getting there: looking at the stats, one thing was a bit odd, Binance pool had only one block signaling taproot over 40. There are a few pools which are behaving in a weird way but maybe that is me that I do not know very much about how the whole thing works.
As I write we are above 78.08%: only 12% missing. Not so bad 

[Charles-Tim]

Yes bro, they are getting there: looking at the stats, one thing was a bit odd, Binance pool had only one block signaling taproot over 40. There are a few pools which are behaving in a weird way but maybe that is me that I do not know very much about how the whole thing works.
As I write we are above 78.08%: only 12% missing. Not so bad 

Binance pool has 2 signals over 44 now, but it is truly somehow, but I remember when mining pools were to show support for Taproot, Binance pool got me annoyed as it does not show support for Taproot earlier, but it later showed support. I think Binance pool will still also show green signal but it can take time as the pool like delaying.

[Wind_FURY]

Are you OK if miners won’t signal for the upgrade?

We aren't facing any kind of deadline after which bitcoin ceases to exist if it hasn't upgraded yet! We are also just in the second week after the release of v. 0.21.1 and I'd rather everyone upgraded naturally specially miners who run modified software not just bitcoin core as is.

OK, plus the upgrade is not facing fierce resistance from the mining cartel. You’re right, if everyone is cooperative, the network should do a regular Miner Activated Soft Fork, and minimize the risks.

Cartel surely does not seem to be a correct word to describe bitcoin mining.. even though there seemed to have been some common interest (resistance) in the 2017 forkening drama.. but even then the factual play out of those events do not really seem to rise to the level of cartel then, and maybe even less so now.

cartel just seems like a misleading term that exaggerates and hardly describes with very much accuracy.

It does not seem correct, but Jihan Wu and his Chinese friends imposing their will on the network surely did make the community feel that way, and there was the New York Agreement. Am I exaggerating? OK, but the UASF was a victory for the community more than most people would admit.

[nibor]

Yes bro, they are getting there: looking at the stats, one thing was a bit odd, Binance pool had only one block signaling taproot over 40. There are a few pools which are behaving in a weird way but maybe that is me that I do not know very much about how the whole thing works.
As I write we are above 78.08%: only 12% missing. Not so bad 

Assumption has been that the pools do a test block - to check it works OK (which we guess this is). Then they slowly roll out to their infrastructure - so next we might see 25% of blocks signalling from them then 50% then 100%. Or however it is they roll it out. But I think they said on Twitter were hoping to be at 100% by end of this week.

[nibor]

BTC.TOP signalling too - so now all of the top 12 pools have signalled one or more blocks - so if they all signal full time up at about 95%.

[acquafredda]

Yes bro, they are getting there: looking at the stats, one thing was a bit odd, Binance pool had only one block signaling taproot over 40. There are a few pools which are behaving in a weird way but maybe that is me that I do not know very much about how the whole thing works.
As I write we are above 78.08%: only 12% missing. Not so bad 

Assumption has been that the pools do a test block - to check it works OK (which we guess this is). Then they slowly roll out to their infrastructure - so next we might see 25% of blocks signalling from them then 50% then 100%. Or however it is they roll it out. But I think they said on Twitter were hoping to be at 100% by end of this week.

I did not know that, thank you for the clarification.
After the latest addition by btc.com, unless these miners go nuts taproot can be activated during the next round since 95% is enough to get this upgrade done soon!
cannot wait for it

[cygan]

BTC.TOP signalling too - so now all of the top 12 pools have signalled one or more blocks - so if they all signal full time up at about 95%.

we can slowly put the hats on


https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1394473764365217795

[Karartma1]

BTC.TOP signalling too - so now all of the top 12 pools have signalled one or more blocks - so if they all signal full time up at about 95%.

we can slowly put the hats on

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1394473764365217795

If my OpSec IRL wouldn't require any mention of my crazy bitcoinery I'd absolutely wear that amazing hat but given the fact that I'm almost paranoid as fuck, I'd never wear it in public.
Great design and good news, taproot can come sooner than I imagined.

[pooya87]

Assumption has been that the pools do a test block - to check it works OK (which we guess this is). Then they slowly roll out to their infrastructure - so next we might see 25% of blocks signalling from them then 50% then 100%. Or however it is they roll it out. But I think they said on Twitter were hoping to be at 100% by end of this week.

There is nothing to test since they are not changing anything about the block itself just a single bit in the block header version field!
It is either because they have different remote servers that operate separately and have to be upgraded one at a time or the change is interfering with something else they are doing such as using ASIC boost!

[JayJuanGee]

Assumption has been that the pools do a test block - to check it works OK (which we guess this is). Then they slowly roll out to their infrastructure - so next we might see 25% of blocks signalling from them then 50% then 100%. Or however it is they roll it out. But I think they said on Twitter were hoping to be at 100% by end of this week.

There is nothing to test since they are not changing anything about the block itself just a single bit in the block header version field!
It is either because they have different remote servers that operate separately and have to be upgraded one at a time or the change is interfering with something else they are doing such as using ASIC boost!

Is the purported "ASIC's boost" overt or covert or just difficult to know what is happening? 

And how speculative is such an "ASIC's boost" practice that you mentioned?  I heard that covert ASIC boost was a "thingie" in 2017-ish, but I thought that segregated witness removed such possibilities to engage in such practices, at least in terms of how it was understood to be being carried out in early to mid-2017.

[pooya87]

Assumption has been that the pools do a test block - to check it works OK (which we guess this is). Then they slowly roll out to their infrastructure - so next we might see 25% of blocks signalling from them then 50% then 100%. Or however it is they roll it out. But I think they said on Twitter were hoping to be at 100% by end of this week.

There is nothing to test since they are not changing anything about the block itself just a single bit in the block header version field!
It is either because they have different remote servers that operate separately and have to be upgraded one at a time or the change is interfering with something else they are doing such as using ASIC boost!

Is the purported "ASIC's boost" overt or covert or just difficult to know what is happening? 

And how speculative is such an "ASIC's boost" practice that you mentioned?  I heard that covert ASIC boost was a "thingie" in 2017-ish, but I thought that segregated witness removed such possibilities to engage in such practices, at least in terms of how it was understood to be being carried out in early to mid-2017.

It is speculation.
As for SegWit it didn't remove ASIC boost, it just made it harder since it requires witness merkle root in coinbase. Otherwise the "boost" is mostly about how you compute the 3 block compression that is required in computing the double SHA256 of the 80-byte message.
I believe the version manipulation (which would make them hesitate to upgrade soon) is categorized under Overt AsicBoost.
Here are two references:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf
https://blog.bitmex.com/graphical-illustration-of-a-bitcoin-block/

[nibor]

I think we are there!

All 11 of the top 11 pools are signalling with all blocks. As are 3 other smaller pools.
So voting over 94%.

Assuming no pool changes its mind, and there is no shift in miners to non-signalling pools then lock-in around the 11/12th June is certain to happen.