Topic 5567590
Re: The Taproot adoption Failure
by on 14/12/2025, 14:09:56 UTC
From what I’ve noticed, the slow pace with Taproot mostly comes down to how much backend work exchanges would need to redo. It’s really not as simple as "enable Taproot”. They will have to adjust parts of their key-management systems, signing setups and a bunch of security routines they’ve relied on for years. Most big platforms avoid touching those unless there’s a strong reason and since SegWit already works smoothly for most people, there isn’t much pressure on them to rush anything.

I honestly think Taproot adoption will pick up naturally once more wallets, libraries and multisig tools make Taproot support easier by default.

Exactly. Segwit was in simple terms, pretty much "use this new kind of address hash, and add a witness stack to the end of the transaction". Very little dev work was required to use this new feature.

Whereas with Taproot not only must you implement a hardened Schnorr signing algorithm, but also a slightly different address encoding bech32p. To say nothing about any optional features you may want such as branch spending conditions or address batch signing.