Which ephemeral anchor script should lightning use?

The discussion raises critical considerations around the security implications of choosing P2TR keyspend transactions over P2A spends in blockchain technology. The choice between these two transaction types has notable consequences, primarily due to the additional 46 virtual bytes (vB) consumed by P2TR keyspends. This increase in transaction size impacts the network's efficiency and can influence transaction prioritization within the blockchain's mempool, where transactions wait to be confirmed by miners.

The analysis further delves into the complexities of determining the likelihood of adverse actions within the network, such as griefing—a scenario where users maliciously congest the network to disadvantage others. It emphasizes that predicting such behavior involves understanding a range of factors, with the extreme case scenario involving a congested mempool and minimal transactions. This situation could lead to what is described as miner censorship, albeit with a unique twist: there would be "victim miners" who miss out on potential profits from honest Child Pays for Parent (CPFP) transactions they could have mined instead.

The conversation also touches upon the strategic considerations miners might have when deciding which transactions to confirm. If miners believe delaying transaction confirmations could be more profitable, due to factors like longer Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs), this could affect the overall strategy of users and developers in setting transaction conditions. Despite these concerns, it is argued that this specific decision between using P2TR or P2A spends is relatively minor within the broader context of blockchain security. However, it underscores the importance of carefully considering the trade-offs involved in technical choices and their potential impact on the network's resilience against both theoretical and practical threats.