Conversation

The slide says Taproot is good for ya but the actual quote is how Taproot is bad for the network by using more vbytes *shrug*

Quote Tweet

btc++

@btcplusplus

Jun 8, 2022

@murchandamus of @ChaincodeLabs discussion going on now at

Discussing an overview of recent feature additions for the Bitcoin Core wallet and what topics contributors are working on these days.

Find out more:

github.com/Xekyo

chaincode.com/team

0:15

3.4K views

7:11 AM · Jun 9, 2022

Replying to

more bytes -> more block space demand -> more security budget? :)

Replying to

: ) lets make every transaction 100,000 bytes

Show replies

@LukeDashjr@BitcoinHackers.org on Mastodon

@LukeDashjr

Jun 9, 2022

Replying to

@Truthcoin

Using more or less vbytes is not good or bad for the network. What matters is that the weight is scalable to the load it places on the network (Taproot is an improvement in this) and the total weight is not too high (Taproot is neutral on this).

Replying to

Ok its disastrous to use vbytes anyways, since they aren't real, I redid it with real bytes and got this:

Show replies

Replying to

> the actual quote is how Taproot is bad for the network Narrator: that was not, in fact, the actual quote

Replying to

true in a “single-sig” but otherwise less.

Replying to

I think most people didn't take this into account before making their decision about Taproot.

Replying to

As I recall it, I conceded that the total input+output weight of a P2TR output is slightly bigger than P2WPKH, but showed via four arguments how they are superior in aggregate.