Changes to BIP-360 - Pay to Quantum Resistant Hash (P2QRH)

The discussion raises several concerns about the naming and conceptual framing of a proposed technical solution commonly referred to as "pay-to-quantum-resistant-hash." One primary argument against this terminology is its potential to miscommunicate the proposal's intent and mechanics, especially since it deviates from established conventions in describing output types. Traditional output types like "pubkey-hash" or "script-hash" clearly describe the target of the payment, namely a public key or a script that must be satisfied to spend. However, the term "quantum resistant" suggests a focus on the nature of the hash function rather than what is being hashed, possibly implying an enhancement in hash function technology which is not the case since the proposal continues to utilize SHA256, acknowledged as quantum-safe.

Furthermore, there is a concern that emphasizing "quantum resistance" might not only be premature but could potentially hinder immediate interest and adoption of the technology until such a quantum threat becomes more apparent or imminent. This perspective underscores a broader apprehension regarding the utility and adoption timing of technological advancements predicated on speculative future threats. Additionally, the critique extends to user experience considerations, particularly the use of specific letters in addresses to indicate quantum resistance, which could set a confusing precedent not aligned with current standards or expectations for address formatting.

Moreover, the correspondence expresses skepticism about the long-term implications of naming conventions centered around quantum resistance, especially in a hypothetical post-quantum world. In such a scenario, it is anticipated that all new features added to Bitcoin would intrinsically incorporate quantum resistance, thereby rendering redundant the need for explicit mention in naming every new output type. This forward-looking stance advocates for a more generalized approach to naming and conceptualizing output types, avoiding undue emphasis on quantum resistance to ensure broader relevance and applicability both now and in the future. The overarching sentiment suggests that while the proposal known as "pay-to-tapscript" offers valuable improvements, its association with quantum computing concerns may unnecessarily delay or complicate its reception and integration within the existing technological framework.