Major BIP 360 Update

The revision maintains its stance against adopting post-quantum signature schemes but introduces "Pay-to-Tapscript-Hash (P2TSH)," a novel output type designed to shield against vulnerabilities in Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) due to potential quantum computing breakthroughs. This adjustment aims to fortify Bitcoin's defenses against emerging ECC threats, marking a pivotal step in the cryptocurrency's evolution towards quantum resistance. The proposal enriches its technical framework with test vectors in Python and Rust, aiming for broader comprehension and simpler implementation of the changes. Community review is encouraged through links provided to the BIP Repo and BIP360.org, highlighting a commitment to refining Bitcoin's security collaboratively.

The terminology chosen, particularly "Pay-to-Tapscript-Hash (P2TSH)," raises concerns about future compatibility and clarity amidst potential blockchain technology evolutions, such as the integration of Simplicity. The naming convention is crucial for clear communication among developers, users, and stakeholders as blockchain complexity and component variety increase. Future-proof names can mitigate obsolescence risks or misinterpretations as new features emerge, emphasizing the importance of anticipatory and clear naming conventions in the blockchain lexicon.

An innovative approach suggests leveraging TXHASH for a multi-step secret reveal mechanism to secure transactions against quantum computing advances without new signatures, focusing on script-only transactions utilizing operations like OP_CTV and OP_TXHASH for quantum resistance. Further information on this proactive stance against quantum vulnerabilities is available at Delving into Bitcoin.

Critiques of BIP-360's terminology, specifically the use of "tap" within names like "TapLeaf" and "TapBranch," argue for more accurate descriptors that reflect functionality. Despite reservations, the term "Pay-to-Script-Tree" is suggested as a more fitting name, illustrating the ongoing debate over precise terminology and its impact on technology understanding and development. Additionally, the naming conventions and the influence of key figures in the bitcoin governance process, such as Sipa, are discussed, highlighting how individual preferences can sway decision-making but also noting a collective decision-making approach prioritizes clarity and broad understanding.

Lastly, there's skepticism regarding the proposal's effectiveness in enhancing quantum computing (QC) resistance for Bitcoin, pointing out that the changes primarily address potential weaknesses in taproot rather than improving Bitcoin's overall QC security posture. This critique questions the rationale behind pursuing a soft fork for these modifications instead of focusing efforts on incorporating a QC secure signature op code, suggesting a need for strategies that more directly bolster Bitcoin's defenses against quantum computing advancements.