rich1.0Karl-Johan Alm [ARCHIVE] (npub17c…qmtzy)https://yabu.me/npub17cwk7hm623dm5npjzu8cvv994h43k2keanegs8w78xyvlez8hqqsqqmtzynjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-03-15 📝 Original message:On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 07:48, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Overall, the tradeoffs here seem ludicrous, given that any QC issues in Bitcoin need to be solved in another way, and > can't practically be solved by just relying on the existing hash indirection. The important distinction here is that, with hashes, an attacker has to race against the spending transaction confirming, whereas with naked pubkeys, the attacker doesn't have to wait for a spend to occur, drastically increasing the available time to attack. It may initially take months to break a single key. In such a scenario, anyone with a hashed pubkey would be completely safe* (even at spend time), until that speeds up significantly, while Super Secure Exchange X with an ultra-cold 38-of-38 multisig setup using Taproot would have a timer ticking, since the attacker need only find a single privkey like with any old P2PK output. (* assuming no address reuse)