Assuming users have upgraded their wallets to handle P2TR outputs and trust the validation rules of P2TR, would there be any advantage of using P2WSH over P2TR?

1 Answer 1


As far as I can tell, P2TR is better than P2WSH in almost every way. I cannot think of a case in which it would be a significant advantage to use P2WSH over P2TR, except that P2WSH is already established.


P2TR outputs will stand out at first since there will be few of them. In the long term, the anonymity set of P2TR is likely to be larger since both single-sig and multisig will look the same until spent.

Engineering effort to adopt

Sending to P2TR addresses will require wallets to implement support for Bech32m. Wallets that want to receive and spend P2TR outputs will need to implement the Schnorr signing algorithm, and reengineer any OP_CHECKMULTISIG based schemas with the op-codes available in Tapscript.

  • "both single-sig and multisig will look the same until spent" - don't you mean "when spent"? Jul 7, 2021 at 15:19
  • @VojtěchStrnad: If you are thinking that the multiparty payment is implemented as an aggregated key, yes, either would be spent as a keypath-spend, but I was thinking here that the multisig would mean that the spenders use the scriptpath.
    – Murch
    Jul 8, 2021 at 1:40
  • Yes, keypath spends are an obvious method of increasing privacy of multisig transactions. I'm not really sure what privacy benefits would come from revealing the multisig script only after the spend – I see privacy as not having to reveal something, ever. Jul 8, 2021 at 1:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.