Is there a social approach to the quantum problem?

In the evolving landscape of blockchain technology and cryptographic security, the debate between tweaking inputs versus outputs for addressing changes and commitments in blockchain transactions holds significant implications. Tweaking inputs is presented as a preferable approach over modifying outputs, primarily due to the complexity and user confusion that altering outputs can cause. Outputs modification requires constant carrying of commitment in the output descriptor to derive the correct address, posing challenges in managing commitments effectively.

The discourse further explores the versatility of committing data to any public key, irrespective of its location or the address type it encompasses. This flexibility remains unaffected by the choice of adopting Taproot, emphasizing that committed data should not be pushed on-chain under the current consensus rules. This caution mirrors the advisory against pushing witness data on-chain prior to 2017, highlighting the necessity for a standardized method of committing data before its on-chain enforcement can be considered.

The anticipation of future soft forks introduces the possibility of requiring additional commitments for transactions, akin to how witness data is attached presently. Such a development would ensure that while non-upgraded nodes perceive data in the existing format, upgraded nodes would recognize and validate the new format along with the committed data for each transaction verification request. This scenario suggests a gradual evolution rather than an abrupt invalidation of old address types, which would instead be "trapped" under new conditions (signature plus commitment) for movement, hinting at a layered approach to enhancing security and functionality.

Looking ahead, the potential obsolescence of commitments due to advancements in cryptographic attacks or discoveries necessitates a framework for continuous upgradeability. The example of SHA-256 and its hypothetical breakage elucidates a strategy where new hash functions could produce identical hashes for legacy data while offering secure 256-bit values for specific compromised cases, following the precedent set by hardened SHA-1. This perspective underscores the critical need for adaptability in cryptographic practices to safeguard against emerging vulnerabilities and ensure enduring security and trust in blockchain transactions.