Private key question

[Oshosondy]

Do not mind my question. We have the legacy, nested segwit and the native segwit bitcoin address, assuming I have a child private key, I can import it on a noncustodial wallet to generate me legacy, nested segwit or native segwit address in this format:

Private key: p2pkh:KxEkaCCw1yhYteYHbHXsNPtkUT7kYDUdoSrn9tsgtWmweU7CZcr7
Address: 1KP9pvBRdyNbbAVderNuDWyng6fhnsr35D

Private key: p2wpkh-p2sh:KxEkaCCw1yhYteYHbHXsNPtkUT7kYDUdoSrn9tsgtWmweU7CZcr7
Address: 3QsaU9cEwKZz4fks6oQ3voxZCQvYQBQWG8

Private key: p2wpkh:KxEkaCCw1yhYteYHbHXsNPtkUT7kYDUdoSrn9tsgtWmweU7CZcr7
Address: bc1qex3vsu9fuxs29u7lsvld6mapktm0hsday8uegx

Warning: do not let anyone know your private key if you love your bitcoin to not be stolen.

I use electrum wallet to generate the private keys. If I am using p2wsh, I think the private key is not useful because I will not be able to spend from it.

Now the question is about taproot. I have read in a way that taproot work more like p2wsh in a way more than 2 keys may be required to sign transaction which means even using the method to get yourself a private key to a single address is useless.

Also can a tool be able to generate legacy, nested segwit and native segwit without knowing the private key?

I asked all these question because of this
https://mobile.twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1475120106695008260/photo/3


What I am thinking is that the private key generated by taproot will be similar to p2wsh and not p2wpkh which will make spending from it impossible because 2 or more keys are required to spend from it. I am also thinking the addresses can not be derived by binance from another address without knowing the user private key, which means what binance said is wrong?

This does not happened to me also it can be true there is warning by binance not to send to taproot address.

[ranochigo]

You can, actually. It just requires a few more steps (from P2PKH to P2WSH and from P2PKH to P2WPKH). Even so, it shouldn't be done because there would be ambiguity to which the funds should be sent to. There is no address standard that strictly mandates 2 or more private keys being required for spending, you can optionally include it as a requirement for your P2WSH.

With regards to the post, Binance made a mistake and burned the coins.

[pooya87]

Now the question is about taproot. I have read in a way that taproot work more like p2wsh in a way more than 2 keys may be required to sign transaction which means even using the method to get yourself a private key to a single address is useless.

Taproot is like both P2PKH/P2WPKH and P2SH/P2WSH combined into one output script. You can have a single private key and a single signature for a P2TR address or you can have a complex script that spends a P2TR output that may need multiple participants.

Also can a tool be able to generate legacy, nested segwit and native segwit without knowing the private key?

You can generate any address type by having the public key or the appropriate hash although it makes sense to do it with the public key which is what HD watch-only wallets do.

I asked all these question because of this
https://mobile.twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1475120106695008260/photo/3

You can't (in most cases) and shouldn't ever "convert" an address to another type. If they do such a conversion for Taproot addresses you could end up losing your coins.
It is like a weird way of saying "we don't support the new address format".

What I am thinking is that the private key generated by taproot will be similar to p2wsh and not p2wpkh which will make spending from it impossible because 2 or more keys are required to spend from it.

Think of P2WSH as P2SH. There is a "script" that spends the output, it doesn't have to require 2 keys. It can be a single key using a locktime (OP_HODL) for example.
Also as I explained above you can have a simple "single-sig" address for your taproot address.

[Oshosondy]

With regards to the post, Binance made a mistake and burned the coins.

I did not understand, binance burned the coin as how? 21 million bitcoin supply is can not be controlled and burned. How did binance burn the coin?

You can generate any address type by having the public key or the appropriate hash although it makes sense to do it with the public key which is what HD watch-only wallets do.

What did you mean as hash? I think hash of a public key is the address to the public key?

[pooya87]

What did you mean as hash? I think hash of a public key is the address to the public key?

Well, address is a human readable string created with a certain encoding and some additional bytes for version, etc using the hash of the public key (or hash of the script in case of P2SH or P2WSH). So if you have the RIPEMD160 hash of SHA256 hash of public key then you can directly use that hash to get the address string.
Although it is possible, as I said, it is not common practice.

[ranochigo]

I do not under, binance burned the coin as in how?

It cannot be recovered.

The original intended address AFAICT from the Twitter account is bc1pfdjlc5p92pxzvacgc5nhn3vgtt54e98472ymxgtejaa0ttdx8lkqzn304u, but the funds were sent to  bc1qfdjlc5p92pxzvacgc5nhn3vgtt54e98472ymxgtejaa0ttdx8lkqgy3xdq. Notice how they changed the address type (P2TR to P2WSH) to ensure that the checksum is correct and that it becomes a P2WSH address. The problem with this is that you cannot interpret a tweaked public key in P2TR as a script hash. Hence,  you can't just fulfill that criteria because it is now treated as a P2WSH instead of a P2TR type.