Newb here.. don’t 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/017622.html <a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev%40lists.linuxfoundation.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5Bbitcoin-dev%5D%20Taproot%20%28and%20graftroot%29%20complexity&In-Reply-To=%3C20200210002011.lelhcdmjejmoh6xv%40erisian.com.au%3E"; title="[bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity">aj at erisian.com.au </a> On 9/19/20, 5:35 AM, "bitcoin-dev on behalf of Jay Berg via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org on behalf of bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > At the time you create a utxo, provided you don't reuse keys, all taproot > 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
