Do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than P2PKH?

Question

Answer quote:

P2TR now is a spiritual successor of P2PK: it locks funds directly to a key and only requires a signature to spend the funds.

If P2TR UTXOs are guarded by Schnorr signatures and P2PKH ones are guarded by ECDSA plus a later RIPEMD160 stage, my question is: do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than using P2PKH, even though using P2TR is obviously currently reasonable (specially for short lived UTXOs)?

... abstracting from the rest of advantages of taproot, like improved privacy for everyone...

Related: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/93047/5406, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/91049/5406 — Murch, Sep 11 '23 at 19:29
Does this answer your question? What are the potential attacks against ECDSA that would be possible if we used raw public keys as addresses? — Pieter Wuille, Sep 12 '23 at 10:24

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Sep 12 '23 at 08:03

1

No, there isn't less (weaker) cryptographic security in P2TR- than P2PKH-type of UTXO (or locking script). As a matter of fact, there are improvements and (useless) complexity removed (to some extent). There is a lot of information about it in the Bitcoin Explained podcast (e.g. episode 2) by Sjors Provoost and Aaron van Wirdum.

answered Sep 12 '23 at 08:03

Greg Tonoski

414
2
11

care to link it please? – Mercedes Sep 12 '23 at 19:45
I believe Greg is referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3tXgN7oxaY – Murch Sep 12 '23 at 20:07

Do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than P2PKH?

1 Answers1