Topic: we have to be ready with taproot address (Read 332 times)

As much as your wallet can handle
and yes, you can sign a message using its child prv keys as long as the client supports signing message to a specific address type. (Bitcoin Core can't, as of now)

But the wallet should have taproot descriptor support to be able to import it.
As of now, I can't find any that supports importation of taproot descriptor (or even other descriptors).

How much address on 1 master private key?. is master private key can sign a transaction or sign a message?

yes maybe because a few wallets and exchange support that make less than 1%, but quite promising, step-by-step growing from 0.4% 5 month ago to 0.8% in the last of September 2022.

Sorry, I didn't mean like that. I'm very thankful when I read your thread more perfect than mine. maybe I have bad English to convey my meaning

Really? I have one topic one year before you created yours. I can not understand why you likely turned to negatively response when I only wanted to help with some topics.

I have interests in Taproot months before it was executed (when there are still vote to lock it in) as the collective topic reflects.


Again, I am not here to compare with you. Just help. Take it simply and easy, move on please.

It's been nearly a year since the taproot upgrade was activated and adoption is still extremely low. According to transactionfee.info, Taproot spending transactions make up less than 1% of all bitcoin transactions.

Many months ago I created a Taproot wallet in Sparrow Wallet but I was frustrated that many services couldn't send BTC to my wallet. I have since switched wallets to try out features that weren't available in Sparrow and unfortunately those wallets do not support creating taproot addresses.

When Segwit was activated several wallets like Electrum and Trustwallet made P2WPKH the default address type and this really helped with Segwit adoption but this time around wallets have been slow to add support.

It's only available for descriptor wallets so you can't export individual private keys with dumpprivkey command.
But you can export its parent descriptor containing the master private key using listdescriptors true

thanks, I just imagine what they was on p2wpkh: Native SegWit, and see visions maybe next is P2TR: KxZcY47u.

How to look the p2tr private key?

my thread from February, which means my thread is your inspiration, thanks. your thread seems better with this, full information, a picture, and an example.

Bech32 and Bech32m are both segwit. Bech32 for segwit version 0 (native segwit). Bech32m for segwit version 1 (pay-to-taproot). Bech32m is just a modified version of bech32 used to encode segwit addresses.

Bitcoin Taproot (Bech32m - bc1p) adoption
Create Taproot address for your Bitcoin
Two of my topics about Taproot and if you want to read more about Taproot, here you go Taproot - The biggest upgrade for Bitcoin since 2017 & documents to read.

Exchanges are still low to support Taproot but with better adoption rate for Bitcoin, I think this progress will be faster than Segwit. It won't need 3 to 4 years to have good Taproot adoption.

Now, in Bitcoin Core version 23.0, it's as easy as selecting "Bech32m (Taproot)" in send tab's drop-down menu.
That's if the wallet is a "descriptor wallet" and created with v23.0, otherwise the user has to manually import p2tr descriptor to their older descriptor wallets.

They promised to implement it but never gave any timeframe and so far it is not yet implemented. You can use hardware wallets that support Taproot with Electrum though.
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/7544

We have to wait to see what they implement but P2TR is the script name used to describe Taproot outputs so that is possibly how it would work.

I have a question stuck in my mind, right now I'm currently focusing on using an electrum wallet.
So if possible and happen in the future, what code electrum implemented for taproot address?
I mean, when first time importing private key, we put code front private key for get specific address,


p2pkh: legacy
p2wpkh-p2sh:Pay to Script Hash
p2wpkh: Native SegWit

Taproot address?..., is P2TR: KxZcY47uGp9a... ?

thanks for the explain, that is enough complicated for what I understand. I think with this update the fee will be more cheaper than segwit 0 but after read all comment my assumption it's not true

@Charles-Tim gave a good answer, I just want to add that the biggest benefit of P2TR is more complicated spending scripts. From a simple multi-signature setup to more complicated multi-branch scripts that you only want to reveal part of it when spending and things like that. For regular uses like when you have one key and want to go the normal "key path spending" the only benefits are a slightly smaller signature and a slightly faster verification compared to P2WPKH since you would be using Schnorr signatures.

Fees are currently low, so you will find that many platforms are lazy to update their code to save fees instead of adding more shitcoins with low fees that give them more money.

Even for users, most campaigns pay more than $30 per week, and some people give the campaign owner a platform address instead of a wallet or send it every few weeks, and therefore paying a dollar or two in fees will not be a big problem for him.

As above mentioned, the parties that should strive to promote P2TR are the ones who have a lot of input, and therefore the withdrawals from the platforms, and the payment of signature campaigns will not save much (if we ignore that the fees are low.)

if electrum support taproot address then i think some signature campaigns will accept it.

Pooya87 posted this already, Electrum latest version is still 4.1.5 which is not supporting pay-to-taproot (P2TR).

If you have any suggestion or saw any update about any reputed wallet supporting P2TR, you can post about it here. I understand you want to use this as a means for people to know how P2TR address looks like, but you did not even mention that, and it is similar to segwit version 0 address which can get some people confused.

Segwit version 0 address: starts from bc1q (q is the witness version 0)
P2TR address (Segwit version 1) address: starts from bc1p (p is the witness version 1)

Exactly.

Paying from Segwit to Segwit address, there would be 42% reduction in fee in 1 input and 2 output transaction, there would be 50% fee reduction in 1 input and 10 output transaction. That is a great means for fee reduction. Campaign managers are really benefiting from this.

P2TR will help in high input transactions, like if a campaign participant do not spent his coins paid as an incentive weekly by campaign managers, the input will be increasing, the transaction fee will reduce like while consolidating the inputs. The fee actually will be reduced, but I do not see so much advantage about this until P2TR is compared with especially P2SH multisig transactions.

For campaign managers, if they know the difference between P2TR and Segwit version 0, they may not request campaign participants for P2TR address. Campaign managers pay in multiple, having high input. This will make them to pay more fee using P2TR than segwit bc1q address.

I have a post about it in the past

Re: advantage of showing unspent outputs among multiple Bitcoin addresses


Pooya87 is very right. If I am a campaign manager, I may not request for P2TR, but if I am a campaign participant and I do not spend my weekly incentives, I will prefer campaign manager to request for P2TR address.

Why small advantage?, Is taproot address doesn't reduce the fee?,

This reason might not be enough to prove that the user doesn't know the Bech32 address. Maybe the poster was rushing to respond to the page and unintentionally submitted a multi-sig address or maybe the user feels like using it, there are some occasions where the manager accepts multi-sig and P2pkh addresses instead of bech32 when you go through some of the spreadsheets.


Despite the upgrades, some people are not bothered and wouldn't move their bitcoins from address A to address B, some prefer using their P2PKH address as long as the fees are still affordable and are supported by other wallets.

There was a big benefit to migrate from legacy addresses to SegWit (version 0) addresses but the benefit is not as big to use Taproot address for single signature addresses.
P2PKH to P2WPKH is a big advantage
P2WPKH to P2TR is a small advantage

So I don't see why anyone would force witness version 1 addresses.

Looks like hardware wallets are the easiest way to create a Taproot address at the moment. The rest either don't support it yet or are very hard to use like Electrum that still doesn't let you create Taproot addresses or bitcoin core that is hard to use (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/110662/how-can-i-create-p2tr-addresses-with-bitcoin-core-22-0).

this was the Modern era, but there are still plenty of people who don't know what is bech 32 addresses and legacy
I received A lot of merits this post. that assume that is the important thing even those all are very very basic knowledge.
like last night I still found members don't know what is bech32 address This.

For the next year, that possible your manager doesn't ask for the bech32 address again but will ask you to provide the Taproot address, do you know what it is?
No, I won't explain that you have to search in this forum, you have grown up, there are many tools on this forum to make it easier to find information about taproot

I write this thread to give basic information on where you can create that address.

1. bitcoin core
2. trezor wallet
3. ledger wallet
4. bitgo
5. electrum
6. ... etc, you must be searching with self

thanks.