The debate that Willy Woo has reignited about quantum computing and taproot is interesting. While I believe that it will take many years and decades to see quantum computing as we imagine it, I do believe that taproot was a design flaw in every respect. As I have mentioned many times, there is widespread suspicion that taproot was approved due to pressure from Core members who had stakes in mining pools. But the truly amusing aspect is that taproot addresses are less secure than segwit addresses, significantly less secure, given that taproot addresses permanently display the public key. A state attacker, for example, could collect Taproot addresses (and other vulnerable ones such as P2PK and Bare multisig/scripts with direct pubkeys) and decrypt their private key. In segwit addresses (also P2PKH and P2SH/P2WSH), this is not possible, since the public key is not exposed; it is only possible at the moment of spending, which is when the public key is exposed, i.e., while it is in the mempool waiting to be confirmed. This reduces the window to minutes and greatly reduces exposure to attack. The example to follow is that of Signal and SimpleX, which improve their encryption algorithms with every step they take and prepare for quantum computing well in advance. Meanwhile, Bitcoin is more concerned with allowing spam and shitty protocols like Citrea. This has less and less of a future.

Nacho Escolar: “El narcotráfico se arregla con regulación: límites al efectivo, más control sobre la compraventa de inmuebles caros y medidas alrededor de las criptomonedas” Empieza fuerte la campaña contras las criptomonedas en España. No conozco ningun caso de venta de droga más allá que el de la deepweb donde se opere con criptos, y este mercado es ridículo comparado con el del sistema fiat.