<p>No, there isn't less (weaker) cryptographic security in P2TR- than P2PKH-type of UTXO (or locking script). As a matter of fact, there are improvements and (useless) complexity removed (to some extent). There is a lot of information about it in the Bitcoin Explained podcast (e.g. episode 2) by Sjors Provoost and Aaron van Wirdum.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-12T19:45:08.487Z
care to link it please?
Mercedes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-12T20:07:26.990Z
I believe Greg is referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3tXgN7oxaY
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-12T08:03:50.370Z
2023-09-12T08:03:50.370Z
Greg Tonoski
<p>Answer quote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/116689/126793">P2TR now is a spiritual successor of P2PK: it locks funds directly to a key and only requires a signature to spend the funds.</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If P2TR UTXOs are guarded by <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schnorr signatures</a> and P2PKH ones are guarded by ECDSA <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address#Address_map" rel="nofollow noreferrer">plus a later RIPEMD160 stage</a>, my question is: do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than using P2PKH, even though using P2TR is obviously <em>currently</em> reasonable (specially for <em>short lived</em> UTXOs)?</p>
<p>... abstracting from the rest of advantages of taproot, like improved privacy for everyone...</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-11T19:29:31.370Z
Related: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/93047/5406, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/91049/5406
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-12T10:24:38.997Z
Does this answer your question? [What are the potential attacks against ECDSA that would be possible if we used raw public keys as addresses?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/95123/what-are-the-potential-attacks-against-ecdsa-that-would-be-possible-if-we-used-r)
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-12T19:56:22.117Z
thankyoubothverymurch
Mercedes
<ecdsa><schnorr-signatures><p2pkh><p2tr><ripemd160>
Do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than P2PKH?
Mercedes
# Do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than P2PKH?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-09-11)

Answer quote:

> [P2TR now is a spiritual successor of P2PK: it locks funds directly to a key and only requires a signature to spend the funds.](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/116689/126793)

If P2TR UTXOs are guarded by [Schnorr signatures](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki) and P2PKH ones are guarded by ECDSA [plus a later RIPEMD160 stage](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address#Address_map), my question is: do we pay cheaper fees for less security in P2TR rather than using P2PKH, even though using P2TR is obviously *currently* reasonable (specially for *short lived* UTXOs)?

... abstracting from the rest of advantages of taproot, like improved privacy for everyone...

**Tags:** ecdsa, schnorr-signatures, p2pkh, p2tr, ripemd160

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/93047/5406, https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/91049/5406  
> **username_2**: Does this answer your question? [What are the potential attacks against ECDSA that would be possible if we used raw public keys as addresses?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/95123/what-are-the-potential-attacks-against-ecdsa-that-would-be-possible-if-we-used-r)  
> **username_0**: thankyoubothverymurch  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-09-12. Score: 1

No, there isn't less (weaker) cryptographic security in P2TR- than P2PKH-type of UTXO (or locking script). As a matter of fact, there are improvements and (useless) complexity removed (to some extent). There is a lot of information about it in the Bitcoin Explained podcast (e.g. episode 2) by Sjors Provoost and Aaron van Wirdum.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: care to link it please?  
> **username_1**: I believe Greg is referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3tXgN7oxaY  

---

