In a single-signer Taproot tackle, the BIP86 tweak has a transparent which means: the output commits to no script tree, solely a key path.
However in a two-party MuSig2 channel, I believe it does one thing further. With out the tweak, Alice may in precept embed a hidden script path into the funding output — one which lets her spend unilaterally. If each side independently apply the BIP86 tweak and confirm the ensuing output key matches, it’s successfully a mutual affirmation: “nothing is hidden on this output.”
So my query: in a MuSig2 channel context, is that this the supposed safety assure of BIP86 — stopping the counterparty from embedding a hidden script path? Or does the channel protocol have separate mechanisms that already cowl this?
In a single-signer Taproot tackle, the BIP86 tweak has a transparent which means: the output commits to no script tree, solely a key path.
However in a two-party MuSig2 channel, I believe it does one thing further. With out the tweak, Alice may in precept embed a hidden script path into the funding output — one which lets her spend unilaterally. If each side independently apply the BIP86 tweak and confirm the ensuing output key matches, it’s successfully a mutual affirmation: “nothing is hidden on this output.”
So my query: in a MuSig2 channel context, is that this the supposed safety assure of BIP86 — stopping the counterparty from embedding a hidden script path? Or does the channel protocol have separate mechanisms that already cowl this?
