Major BIP 360 Update

The email raises concerns about the proposed BIP-360, highlighting its close resemblance to BIP-341 but with a critical omission of taproot, questioning the rationale behind retaining the term "tap"/"taproot" in its naming. The sender points out that BIP-342, which defines "tapscript" as a variant of Bitcoin Script for use in BIP-341 script tree leaves, is the only script type specified under the broader BIP-341 framework. However, BIP-360 appears to extend its application to include any future script semantics without clear delineation, which misrepresents its functionality by suggesting it specifically relates to "tapscript." This misnomer could potentially mislead stakeholders about its true purpose and capabilities.

Further scrutiny reveals a lack of clarity in BIP-360 regarding the applicable script rules for transactions it encompasses. Since BIP-342's applicability is explicitly limited to spending outputs from BIP-341, and given that BIP-360 outputs do not qualify, there arises an ambiguity in the regulation of spending rules under the new proposal. This oversight suggests that, as currently written, BIP-360 may inadvertently classify every leaf as an anyone-can-spend, contrary to what might be the intent behind its creation.

The critique extends to challenge the justification for the proposal's naming based on aesthetic appeal or phonetic similarity, labeling such rationale as superficial and potentially damaging to the ecosystem's integrity. The suggestion to rename the proposal to something more accurate like "pay to script tree hash" is offered as a constructive alternative to avoid misleading the community and better reflect the proposal's function. The conversation underscores a need for precision and clarity in the development and naming of technical proposals within the cryptocurrency domain, emphasizing the importance of accurately conveying their purpose and mechanism to maintain trust and understanding within the community.