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

The discussion centers around the implications of modifying Bitcoin's Taproot upgrade to potentially include features similar to those found in Ethereum, such as account balances within the UTXO set that can be incremented or decremented. This idea suggests a simplification for users by reducing the need for change outputs, which could lower transaction costs. However, this approach is critiqued for potentially undermining privacy by incentivizing behaviors akin to address reuse, which is contrary to the privacy enhancements intended with Taproot. Taproot was designed to encourage the use of a cooperative key path for transactions, which is more cost-effective than alternative methods and promotes privacy.

The critique extends to the broader principle that privacy should not be a feature only accessible to those willing or able to pay extra for it. Privacy is seen as a communal benefit that loses its effectiveness if only a subset of users maintain it. Therefore, any proposal that might encourage less private transaction methods due to cost-saving measures is viewed unfavorably. The argument posits that creating a cheaper, less private option does not serve the community well, even if technically feasible.

Moreover, the conversation touches upon the resistance such a proposal would likely face, drawing parallels with the ethos behind the initial design of Taproot. The focus is on the principle that the Bitcoin protocol should not encourage practices that compromise user privacy. Instead, it is suggested that maintaining a level field where privacy is uniformly preserved without imposing additional costs is preferable, aligning with the original goals of Taproot to enhance privacy and efficiency in Bitcoin transactions without compromising on either.