Quantum computers, used maliciously, are a potential threat to all existing digital systems. Bitcoin cannot escape this.
With that in mind, prominent analysts say: in chains Willy Woo focused on the use of taproot addresses in Bitcoin and its relationship to quantum computing. he warned about something Adoption of that address format continues to decline.
According to the data shared by Woo, from 2024 onwards, Taproot usage will be “Decreased from 42% to 20%”.
The following graph presented by Willy Woo shows the evolution of the use of different types of addresses in Bitcoin from the output (output) Actual amount spent using a 90-day moving average.
There are clear long-term trends. This is the oldest address known as “.heritage”, those formats have steadily decreased, while the newest formats have increased their participation in the network (smaller areas indicate lower adoption rates).
The area corresponding to Taproot (purple) will experience significant growth from 2023 to early 2024, followed by Its share has been decreasing since the beginning of 2025 until now. Meanwhile, native Segwit addresses are on the rise.
According to analysts, a lack of continued adoption of modern addressing standards has never been observed.
While this pattern supports Woo’s claims about Taproot’s reduced usage, the graph also suggests that this phenomenon occurs in a dynamic environment where changes are responsive to multiple factors rather than a single cause.
Use of taproot format in Bitcoin causes setbacks
Network data supports the observation of Taproot’s relative decline in usage.
According to statistics on the Clark Mooby website, out of the corresponding UTXOs (unused transaction outputs) in the past 30 days, Taproot outputs are Approximately 8% of the total volumeis by far the least used format.
Meanwhile, Dune analytics platform metrics also show that usage of Taproot addresses started to decline from January 2025 onwards.
Bitcoin taproot and quantum dangers
After presenting the data, Wu argued: Taproot could be vulnerable to quantum computingUnlike older formats such as SegWit and Legacy (P2PKH).
Taproot (P2TR), enabled for Bitcoin in 2021, introduced a new digital signature scheme based on Schnorr and unified various spending conditions With a single public key.
In reality, many Taproot outlets function as simple payments, even if they have more complex structures hidden inside.
However, this design has related consequences from quantum optics. Public keys associated with funds are published on-chain As long as it remains unused.
In a hypothetical scenario where a quantum computer with sufficient capacity exists (something that cannot happen today), this information could be used to calculate the corresponding private key and manage your funds.
On the other hand, traditional Legacy and SegWit formats do not expose the public key until funds are transferred, reducing the window of opportunity for users to attack. Protection is temporary, not absolute.
Seen from this perspective, Woo’s argument is not that Taproot is currently insecure, but that its long-term public key publication model is insecure. There will be less room for reaction In the face of rapid advances in quantum computing compared to previous schemes.
Criticism of the link between tap root and quantum risk
The Bitcoiner developer known as Wicked in X relativized his interpretation of Taproot’s decline and ironically related it to other factors.
That’s simply because the ordinal numbers have collapsed. You didn’t know until recently that Taproot addresses are not quantum resistant, and now you want to believe that everyone else already knows that.
Wicked, Bitcoin developer.
Analysts also have the same idea. in chains Mr. Dirkforst elaborated as follows: The rise and subsequent decline of rune-related trade Other uses of Taproot could potentially explain the observed pattern.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Knots client administrator Luke Dashjr questioned the validity of the data, noting that a large portion of Taproot’s usage is related to activities that are considered “spam.”
Ultimately, Wu said, the question is not whether quantum computing poses an immediate threat; How that risk is interpreted by investors.
“To say that quantum risk is 20 years away is beside the point. What matters now is whether investors recognize the risk and are selling. The perceived risk is enough to halt adoption,” he concluded.