For all existing digital systems, a maliciously used quantum computer represents a potential threat. Bitcoin does not escape this.
With that in mind, the renowned analyst on chain Willy Woo focused on the use of Taproot addresses in Bitcoin and its relationship with quantum computing. He warned about a sustained decline in the adoption of that address format.
According to data shared by Woo, since 2024 the use of Taproot «fell from 42% to 20%».
The following graph presented by Willy Woo shows the evolution of the use of the different types of addresses in Bitcoin from the outputs (outputs) actually spent, using a 90-day moving average.
There is a clear long-term trend: the oldest addresses, known as “legacy”, they lose weight steadily, while the most recent formats gain participation within the network (a smaller area indicates lower adoption).
The area corresponding to Taproot (purple) shows that, after marked growth during 2023 and early 2024, its share falls from the beginning of 2025 to the present. On the other hand, native Segwit addresses increase.
According to the analyst, the latest addressing standard has never been observed to lose adoption on a sustained basis.
This pattern supports Woo’s claim about a reduction in Taproot usage, although the graph also suggests that the phenomenon occurs in a dynamic environment, where changes respond to multiple factors and not a single cause.
Use of Taproot format in Bitcoin registers a setback
Network data supports the observation about the decline in Taproot’s relative usage.
According to statistics from the Clark Mooby website, of the UTXOs (unspent transaction outputs) corresponding to the last 30 days, Taproot outputs represent about 8% of the total volumebeing the least used format percentage wise.
In turn, metrics from the Dune analysis platform also show that the use of Taproot addresses started to descend from January 2025.
Taproot and the danger of quantum for Bitcoin
After presenting his data, Woo maintained that Taproot would be vulnerable to quantum computingunlike older formats such as SegWit and Legacy (P2PKH).
Taproot (P2TR), activated on Bitcoin in 2021, introduced a new digital signature scheme based on Schnorr and unified different spending conditions in a single public key.
In practice, many Taproot outlets function as simple payments, even when they may hide more complex structures inside.
However, this design has a relevant consequence from quantum optics: the public key associated with the funds is exposed on the chain for as long as they remain unspent.
Under a hypothetical scenario in which a quantum computer with sufficient capacity existed (something that does not happen today), this information could be used to try to derive the corresponding private key and take control of funds.
On the other hand, in traditional Legacy and SegWit formats, the public key is not exposed as long as the funds are not moved, which reduces the period during which users could be attacked. The protection is temporary, not absolute.
From this perspective, Woo’s argument is not that Taproot is currently insecure, but that its long public key exposure model would offer less room for reaction in the face of an abrupt advance in quantum computing, compared to older schemes.
Criticism of the link between Taproot and quantum risk
The bitcoiner developer known in X as Wicked relativized and ironized interpretation of the decline in Taproot and linked it to other factors.
That’s simply because the ordinals collapsed. You didn’t even know that Taproot addresses weren’t quantum resistant until recently, and now you want us to believe that everyone else already understood that.
Wicked, Bitcoin developer.
Along the same lines, the analyst on chain Darkfost detailed that he rise and subsequent fall of transactions linked to Runes and other uses of Taproot could explain the observed pattern.
On the other hand, Luke Dashjr, maintainer of the Bitcoin Knots client, he questioned the validity of the data by pointing out that a significant part of the use of Taproot was associated with practices considered “spam.”
Ultimately, Woo argued that the issue is not whether quantum computing poses an immediate threat, but how that risk is interpreted by investors.
“To say that quantum risk is 20 years away misses the point. What matters now is whether investors perceive risk and are selling. The perceived risk is enough to stop adoption,” he concluded.