Topic: P2TR can make people that are using multisig wallets to increase (Read 231 times)

First of all the calculator is wrong because you can not compute size of a transaction that has P2SH or P2WSH inputs without knowing the redeem scripts that were used. For instance a P2SH signature script could be as low as 2 bytes or as high as 10000 bytes.
Basically the calculator is using a tiny and limited subcategory of P2(W)SH scripts (standard multi-sig redeem scripts with compressed public key with nothing else inside).
It also has the wrong presentation that looks like you could have more than one public key and/or signature for P2(W)PKH inputs although the calculation is correct regardless of the textboxes.

Secondly, my comparison was between single signature/public key needed per input and it could be extrapolated to more while considering the pubkey aggregation Schnorr offers.
Schnorr signatures are reducing the size, if you have one signature in your input (whether it is P2PKH or P2WPKH or P2SH or P2WSH) the reduction is as I said in raw bytes which you can easily convert to weight and virtual size.
If you have more signatures in the input (whether P2SH or P2WSH) the reduction is as I said + the aggregation reduction which is when you only have 1 signature + 1 public key instead of n signatures and m public keys.

Yes and no.

No, because people who use multisig wallets are often entities that keep more bitcoin than being worried of fee problem and multisig wallets are not used to make daily payments.

Yes because Taproot bring features more than low fee multisig feature.

Shouldn't you be comparing P2WPKH to P2TR instead? Eitherways, both of them are showing that TR has a lower raw size for me (99vbytes vs 109vbytes). Taproot is specifically designed for signature aggregation which is largely beneficial for P2WSH, 166.25 vbytes for TR vs 357.75 vbytes for P2WSH. If Musig is your main focus, you'll reap more benefits by using TR by the lower size as well as better privacy.

What has this got to do with your post? Should be fairly easy to breakdown the components to get the total size anyways.

I do not know much about taproot, but there is a transaction vsize calculator I have seen some months ago that included taproot transactions, according to the calculation I made by using it, P2WSH (segwit) transactions are still slightly lower to that of P2TR (taproot), this makes me think that because if this, segwit transactions will still be lower, but P2TR transactions will be best for multisig transactions because using Schnorr signature, multisig transactions will be indistinguishable from a wallet using one private key. But, as for P2PKH (legacy) and PSH (nested segwit) transactions, the vsizes are higher if compared to P2TR using the calculator. The calculator is also open source.

Schnorr signatures take up less space since the useless DER encoding is abandoned and the public keys are encoded without the first byte. (72 byte -> 64 byte sig & 33 byte -> 32 byte pub) 9 bytes reduction in total raw bytes.
Weight-wise that means legacy transaction's signatures have 36 more weight than Schnorr transaction's signatures.

Does Taproot reduce overall transaction size for non musig? I did remember that TR TXes are smaller than Segwit TXes by about 20bytes 10 bytes or so for a 1 input -> 1 output.

Segwit was activated in 2017. Does Blockchain.com implement Segwit?

It is naive to think that just because Bitcoin Core implements something, then the rest of the community will follow suit. Soft fork makes it such that it doesn't have to be a mandatory upgrade and furthermore, there isn't any practical reason why wallets have to support Taproot. It does seems like you have a few misconceptions though.


It is 15.

I am sure the activation of P2TR will go a long way in helping multisig and that is what we have really be waiting for being able to sign message with all public key having to use multi private keys assign to different assets in the wallet.

Do not comment on what you do not know, soft fork upgrade like segwit and taproot will first be implemented on bitcoin core, the implementation will be immediately after bitcoin community all support the activation. Like for taproot, the next stage they are is speedy trial in which miners will signal for support during certain short period of time, while if most miners signal for activation, the activation will then occur like three months time after the speedy trial.

I know the principle that guides the use of multisig, also this thread is not about how to use multisig, it is about how taproot activation will help multisig users to take advantage of low fee. Also, the maximum number of cosigners on electrum is 5, and also the maximum number of private key that can be set is 5, not 15.

Different wallets are built and upgraded by different developer teams and you can not say other wallets depend on Bitcoin Core upgrade to do theirs.

It is what you choose when you create your multisig wallet: signature and cosigner.
"Choose the number of signatures needed to unlock funds in your wallet:"
In Electrum wallets, the max number for signature and cosigner are 15.

Not all people will use it. I need a strong password for my wallet and I don't use a multisig wallet. I don't store all my bitcoin in one wallet and in one device.

Taproot was added to bitcoin core a long time ago and you can use it in a testing environment such as the new Signet "network".
However, Taproot is not yet activated in Bitcoin.

I don't think the signalling is started yet so we can't tell how long it would take for it to reach majority support and activate.

This is an advantage only if your design demands it. For example a company that has to have multiple signers with equal control, a 2of3 escrow,... otherwise the complication it adds is a disadvantage for normal usages not to mention that multi-sig transactions are bigger in size (Schnorr solves this but the complication remains).

If an attacker can gain access to a properly stored keys in a single-sig wallet it is safe to assume they can access all of them in a multi-sig wallet too. And again storing the keys separately and securely adds a lot of complication.

Organizations, yes. Regular people, not that much.

A little misconception, Multisig Wallets contains addresses that has a predefined N set of keys for which at least M of the keys must sign any transaction for them to be valid. A single wallet should not generate all of the keys.

MuSig is great if you're looking for a kind of contract that requires M parties to agree to a transaction out of N total parties. In terms of it's security, I would argue that using an airgapped wallet is enough. Having to transfer your raw TX through many devices only serves to complicate the matter somewhat. Definitely won't be sufficient for physical attacks, ie $5 wrench attack.

The signature aggregation will enhance the privacy as well.

P2TR is known as pay to Taproot, P2TR has not yet been activated in Bitcoin Core which means other wallets has not also been supoorting it. But the activation of P2TR will not pass this year, likely it will be before November of this year as we quite know miners will support the activation.

Multisig wallets are wallets that can create M of N private keys, M means the number of private keys that will be able to sign among those that generate the wallet with total number of N private keys. As for what I have known, I can say multisig wallet has good advantages even over other wallet types because of the private keys that are generated to sign for transactions can be more than one. Even if the offline wallet private key is seen by hackers, it can be used to steal the whole wallet from someone, it can happen to all wallets, but unlike multisig wallets, unless all the certain number of private keys require for signing is known, which will be difficult if saved offline and in different locations.

Assuming I am using multisig wallet, I have 2 private keys to sign transactions, if one of the private keys is known to a hacker, it will still be impossible for the hacker to steal the wallet from me, the reason the two private keys should not be safe together but save offline differently in different locations.

Many people know how multisig wallet are very safe, but they do not use it because of the higher transaction fee which will be required. P2TR will make use of schnorr signature, the signing will be in a way that the transaction will be like a transaction of normal wallets that make use of one private key and one public key for transaction, this will make the transaction fee to be low and be like normal single wallet transactions. The amazing thing is that P2TR will support multisig transaction which can make people that make use of multisig wallet to increase after P2TR activation.

What do you think? Will Taproot activation increases the number of people and organizations that will make use of multisig wallets because of the transaction fee reduction?