Re: [bitcoindev] A Taproot-native (re-)bindable transaction bundle proposal

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1698 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 06:59:18PM -0400, James O'Beirne wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
> 
> > You state that between 0.1% and 0.75% of all bitcoins in existence are
> > held in P2TR outputs, and use this figure to conclude the
> > "overwhelming majority of **value transfer** in bitcoin is still
> > happening in a pre-Taproot script context".
> 
> I think you might have misparsed my email; I wasn't using one
> observation to justify the other.
> 
> I ran a script[0] to tally the value of newly created outputs by address
> type, and the node tells me that 93.5% of all output-value created over
> the last three months is non-P2TR.

The total output value created that is non-P2TR is irrelevant here: all those
outputs are being created by existing production systems. Obviously, they have
no reason to rush to implementing taproot. Heck, as I just mentioned elsewhere,
even P2PKH addresses are *still* fairly commonly used even though there are
significant fee savings to upgrading. People just don't like upgrading existing
- working - code unless there is a really good reason.

What we're discussing here is a new scripting feature, that inevitably are only
useful for brand new code. There are no sigificant obstacles to new code making
use of taproot.

ACK new opcodes being taproot only.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/aHi80KYQB7ZnUiVl%40petertodd.org.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]