Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] A Taproot-native (re-)bindable transaction bundle proposal

From: "'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:23:30 +0000

Hi James,

I'll let readers decide for themselves whether your citation of that data was intended to justify the content of the sentence that immediately followed.

Thanks for the script. It is consistent with the numbers that Murch and I cited. This is equivalent to picking 90-day as the moving average on 0xb10c's website[^0]. Again, a quick glance at this graph gives a pretty good indication of the direction of Taproot adoption. The share of created outputs (by value) went from 1.6% a year ago to 6.7% today.

We all wish Bitcoin users adopted the latest technology faster than they do, but this is probably only going to get slower as Bitcoin matures. And the trend from the past year gives some reason to be optimistic.

In any case, none of this is a reason to incentivize users to stay on older versions of the scripting context by going out of our way to also enable new features there. If anything the slight nudge to upgrade to Taproot should be seen as a good thing.

Best,
Antoine

[^0]: https://mainnet.observer/charts/output-type-distribution-amount/
On Friday, July 11th, 2025 at 7:39 PM, James O'Beirne <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Antoine,
>
>> You state that between 0.1% and 0.75% of all bitcoins in existence are
>> held in P2TR outputs, and use this figure to conclude the
>> "overwhelming majority of **value transfer** in bitcoin is still
>> happening in a pre-Taproot script context".
>
> I think you might have misparsed my email; I wasn't using one
> observation to justify the other.
>
> I ran a script[0] to tally the value of newly created outputs by address
> type, and the node tells me that 93.5% of all output-value created over
> the last three months is non-P2TR.
>
> I'll leave it to you as to whether 93.5% constitutes an "overwhelming
> majority of value transfer," but I wouldn't really consider that
> characterization as dishonest.
>
>> In 2024 and 2025 between 20% and 40% of all onchain transfers used
>> Taproot[^0].
>
> If we're going to talk about cherry-picking, here's where to do it.
> From the previously linked mempool.space research post[1], they "find
> that the vast majority (86%) of p2tr UTXOs are sub-1000 sats in value."
> So the case for *ahem* "legitimate" Taproot activity is probably worse.
>
> [0]: https://gist.github.com/jamesob/1e3b07af5fbc1ef9bd9471d83f8d1fa6
> [1]: https://research.mempool.space/utxo-set-report/
>
>> We should not provide new features for an outdated scripting context
>> unless we have a strong reason to.
>
> Based on the numbers above, many users would likely disagree that
> witness v0 is outdated. Sure, there are benefits to Taproot and I like
> Schnorr signatures as much as the next guy, but the fact is that there's
> nothing wrong with wit v0 and most users of bitcoin still make use of
> it. Professionally, I'm in this position.
>
> I'll respond to the other stuff later.
>
> Sincerely,
> James
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAPfvXfL59wF-sfrnwkK0NUeGCphsJ1VJzGmbTUDHgNFncx2VSw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/woOdz4IR09csuZZbFa1v7wdKaTWGBtg_3ouuFkxSP2MAbRnnsCMg0KfgPUBWF3tLTQ7gfdTmWoBsj1kUIi0duSbtxfssp9cg61M8S4JjwBU%3D%40protonmail.com.