Bitcoin Taproot Could Be Falling Short of Promised Privacy and Security, Developer Says

• Taproot expanded Bitcoin scripting, enabling Ordinals and Runes to embed large nonfinancial data.

• Critics argue Taproot increased spam and complexity, while proponents point to fee revenue supporting miner incentives.

• Ordinals-related fees contributed over $500 million cumulatively; daily inscription fees ranged from ~$3k to ~$537k in 2025.

Taproot upgrade debate is heating up: Jimmy Song says Taproot fell short on privacy and security—read the implications and what Bitcoiners propose next. Read now.

Bitcoin Core developer Jimmy Song says the Taproot upgrade has not matched expectations, arguing it did not deliver the privacy and security gains proponents promised and instead widened Bitcoin’s social attack surface.

What is the Taproot upgrade and why does it matter?

Taproot upgrade is a Bitcoin protocol change that introduced Schnorr signatures and Script Path Spend, designed to improve privacy and efficiency for complex scripts. In practice, Taproot altered how onchain data can be encoded and validated, enabling new use cases such as Ordinals and Runes that have shifted fee dynamics and network debate.

How did Taproot enable Ordinals and Runes to flourish?

Taproot relaxed script expressiveness and combined with changes like the OP_RETURN adjustment, it allowed inscriptions—images, audio and documents—to be embedded more easily onchain. That technical capability, paired with developer and community adoption, produced a surge of nonfinancial transactions that increased average daily fees and sparked ideological disagreements over onchain content.

Key context: developers activated Taproot in November 2021; later policy shifts and developer votes changed how much arbitrary data could be stored onchain, creating practical pathways for Ordinals and Runes.

Why do some Bitcoin developers say Taproot “failed”?

Critics such as Bitcoin Core developer Jimmy Song argue Taproot has not delivered promised user-facing benefits because:

• Schnorr multisig UX turned out more complex in practice, often requiring extra signature rounds compared with legacy multisig.

• Privacy gains have been limited where application-level usage patterns reveal more information than protocol-level improvements could mask.

• Social attack surface increased, allowing nonfinancial use-cases to proliferate and generate spam-like behavior that strains block space.

When did the community reaction escalate to forks and node diversity?

Reaction intensified after an 80-byte OP_RETURN limit change in June, which removed constraints on onchain data sizes. Concern over potential policy reversals and censorship led some participants to shift from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots. Bitcoin Knots node count rose from 67 in March 2024 to over 7,112 by mid-2025, approaching ~28% of the network’s visible nodes.

Community positions now divide roughly into two camps: those who want Bitcoin focused strictly as peer-to-peer electronic cash, and those who favor maximal transaction neutrality that permits any valid data to be included onchain.

How much fee revenue have Ordinals and Runes generated?

Proponents such as the Ordinals community leader “Leonidas” claim Ordinals and Runes contributed over $500 million in transaction fees to miners cumulatively. Daily inscription fees in 2025 ranged from approximately $3,060 to $537,400, according to public analytics datasets. These figures are uneven and episodic compared with historical highs—miners earned up to $9.99 million on a single day for Ordinals activity on Dec. 16, 2023.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Taproot change multisig and recovery options?

Taproot introduces Schnorr signatures and Script Path Spend to streamline complex scripts, but in some real-world setups it required more signature rounds and added UX complexity, reducing adoption of the intended multisig recovery flows.

What is the social attack surface that critics mention?

“Social attack surface” refers to how protocol features create new avenues for community-driven exploitation or abuse—here, enabling mass nonfinancial inscriptions that change economic incentives and propagation behavior on the network.

Key Takeaways

• Technical change, social consequence: Taproot altered scripting capabilities, which enabled new uses like Ordinals and Runes.
• Divided community: Some Bitcoiners prioritize pure monetary use, others prioritize transaction neutrality; this drives software and node choices.
• Economic impact: Ordinals-related fees have materially increased miner revenue at times, but the revenue is uneven and episodic.

Conclusion

Taproot upgrade delivered protocol-level innovations but has produced contested outcomes for privacy, UX and onchain content. The debate—between those who want Bitcoin narrowly focused as money and those who embrace broader transaction inclusion—continues to shape node software, fee economics and potential forks. Monitor developer proposals and fee trends to assess Taproot’s long-term net effects.

Publication: COINOTAG — Published: 2025-09-13. Updated: 2025-09-13.

#vlog 27 — Was Taproot A Wise Decision? pic.twitter.com/sUjtf8JA2z — Jimmy Song (송재준) @jimmysong September 13, 2025