From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3838C0051 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A756F86D10 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:23:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nQCYgcKLtOCu for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:23:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io1-f47.google.com (mail-io1-f47.google.com [209.85.166.47]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E952186D36 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f47.google.com with SMTP id z13so11798141iom.8 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:23:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ilWHaAZLM4U/rD5z0QSWh3UvuZ98K5X2/t4V6sr4/9M=; b=ZunWCoo4l8hD8h/KU80dBL2pwNM4epfdSjWUJ3bp5nggoAG2lSkCEfE3mzgRCyBo2N +SxkO1ghwo2dDAP4g4UnFs4f74tGotgJ8lUMGqUFjbEYxQab8mwWQEsuff3grikJLyA1 sCyuPegH+YGgAfQcnqaAFBuP9kROiCUOZjHon/lD/zmM857JvC2Z8xqCOIqkJ8hc03Ou hCNpb4vi/Y/grVHgWVLJMk0rt0rzmegyGBPuTX2RH2r7YhFbRFfrX5laXgSuppyqho0+ HiLNk39+1PDFQcCvsmqLx54S86je26YxvPEpISy0j6ro+qg4/Q745GSsOZE4dF5+oGTC t+rw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ilWHaAZLM4U/rD5z0QSWh3UvuZ98K5X2/t4V6sr4/9M=; b=KjTcE2dXUF5rfCJ5D+DVXYqFsUK4rQ+aYw1FybIHdgoPdHG3qb8vXQl8nnIXyfoofW LJBn/pIc6+0LeJg6bpQXAkzmlAEaHAOIcEZWWSEPPt+IolfSp4wfS6B+wDCnnl944atU DbYSnFyD8/Y+croudRX9rz5UCDUjf9CgklPvTgLELPt6o3Mjpv8AJOpdHCF72w64gMDo yAtVqr4abHwajFuqBSM5Y7lrxPLPIvkq6qamvc0zrK2LoNfFUxy0q4f1dD0FOcKP0JHq qFHBqa4Atg+hqGHhbB3aZfqsbbEUuMHHO9TNakW/OdSQPoRVNRxwWfB983oKBziz6bhb PFiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nwavZgOB3LQaKtLNr0vt8wzpdWDpZ41oWl9+y7fRdTgRdtqck 7Kvn+ahC+xZTzDMRaLFntB9F/C5jTULz6f4KwDwv5xzmf2E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyuktcpBVetosXoWMr6RCBf32aiI/IMkhX0ZnA7zs+OjWzMuXvT75vTahyz8OxV6BgkzrdxpRXEWkYg6MR5zk4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2e81:: with SMTP id m1mr32283195iow.64.1600572235950; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:23:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36F82F07-9650-466F-99EB-09D306BABAEB@protoblock.com> In-Reply-To: <36F82F07-9650-466F-99EB-09D306BABAEB@protoblock.com> From: Lloyd Fournier Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:23:28 +1000 Message-ID: To: Jay Berg , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 08:36:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:23:57 -0000 Hi Jay, I don't think there's much of a difference in security or privacy. The advice to avoid key-reuse remains the same and for the same reasons. LL On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 11:08 PM Jay Berg via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Newb here.. don=E2=80=99t know if "in-reply-to" header is misbehaving. > > But this is the OP thread: > > [bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity > Anthony Towns aj at erisian.com.au > Mon Feb 10 00:20:11 UTC 2020 > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-February/017= 622.html > > aj at erisian.com.au > > > =EF=BB=BFOn 9/19/20, 5:35 AM, "bitcoin-dev on behalf of Jay Berg via bitc= oin-dev" wrote: > > > > At the time you create a utxo, provided you don't reuse keys, all t= aproot > > spends are indistinguishable. At the time you spend a taproot utxo, > > does reusing keys act differently in taproot than with Pay-to-PubKey-= Hash? Or is it the same deal.. same pubkey creates same address? > > Question is: is the security/privacy implications worse when reusing = pubkeys with taproot? > > ty > jay > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev