BitcoinIsFuture on Nostr: It is proven that taproot is abused and expoited. ...

It is proven that taproot is abused and expoited.

quoting
nevent1q…fx9a

TLDR:
- OP_IF data storage — 99.11%
- Non-OP_IF data storage — 0.049%
- Small data inscription — 0.140%
- BitVM-like — 0.015%
- Other spend-condition scripts — 0.68%
- Data storage (first three combined) — 99.3%

By Steve

New study: 3 years of revealed Taproot scripts on-chain

12.4% of bytes in the Bitcoin blockchain have been revealed Taproot spending scripts since July 2023

Over 99% of the bytes in those scripts were data storage via the dead-code OP_IF method

Explanation and GitHub link:

Most people think of owning bitcoin as having a bitcoin address, and then having bitcoin sent to that address. This is correct.

An advanced way to use bitcoin is to have the bitcoin sent to a script that is more complex than simply a bitcoin address that is controlled by a single private key.

These advanced scripts are things like multi-sigs where, for example, 2 of 3 private keys can be used to control the funds. When bitcoin is sent to one of these scripts, the blockchain does not know the full text of the script because the chain initially only records the fingerprint (a hash) of the script.

The full text of the script is only revealed when someone spends the bitcoin that was sent to it.

In November of 2021, Taproot introduced a new style of script spending, but the basic nature of revealing the full text of the script only upon spending is the same.

An important aside here is that Taproot has the ability to hide scripts that could have been used to spend the coins. This can happen via a "key-path" spend, or by script branches that were committed but were not needed to spend the coins.

Thus this analysis pertains to the Taproot scripts that were indeed revealed in order to spend the coins using a Taproot script-path style spend.

There have been over a hundred million of these revealed scripts on chain. However instead of complex spending conditions, the scripts have been used almost entirely for on-chain bulk data storage - over 99% by bytes count.

Key takeaways of this study:

1) Revealed taproot spending scripts account for 12.4% of block space in the Bitcoin blockchain by bytes since July 2023.

2) The revealed scripts can be categorized in a straightforward manner (explained below) and it is clear that over 99% of them (by bytes) are data storage using the dead-code OP_IF construction.

The detailed category descriptions are:

OP_IF data storage — More than half the script's bytes are arbitrary data tucked inside an OP_IF branch that is guaranteed never to run (dead code), so the data isn't logic at all — it's just parked on-chain as permanent storage. This is the inscription pattern (ordinals, BRC-20, Atomicals), and the vast majority carry a known inscription marker such as "ord" or "atom".

Non-OP_IF data storage — More than half the bytes are data stored in large pushes out in the open, rather than hidden behind a dead OP_IF branch (a push counts as data only when it's too big to be a key or a hash).

Small data inscription — The script contains an inscription (an OP_IF data envelope), but the data is 50% or less of its bytes — typically a tiny inscription whose surrounding script overhead is about as large as the data itself. It's still data storage, just too small to dominate the script, so it's kept out of the >50% data-storage totals rather than inflating them.

BitVM-like — An executable script that performs a large hash-based computation instead of checking a signature — the shape used by BitVM-style verification. Defined precisely as an executable script with no signature check and at least 20 hash operations.

Other spend-condition scripts — Everything left over: genuine spending logic that actually controls the coins, with no data-storage envelope at all. In practice these are ordinary conditions like single-signature, multisig, timelocks, and hashlocks.

The results of running the classification on the past three years of revealed Taproot script-path spends are by bytes:

- OP_IF data storage — 99.11%
- Non-OP_IF data storage — 0.049%
- Small data inscription — 0.140%
- BitVM-like — 0.015%
- Other spend-condition scripts — 0.68%
- Data storage (first three combined) — 99.3%

Anyone can verify the results of this study using their own node's copy of the blockchain and the GitHub link below.
https://github.com/Unbesteveable/taproot-scriptspends