# RSKIP-X: Expanding the emergency multisig **URL:** \ **Category:** RSKIP\ **Created:** [August 18, 2021, 3:14pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/rskip-x-expanding-the-emergency-multisig/218 "2021-08-18T15:14:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![light](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/research.rsk.dev/light/32/59_2.png) [@light](https://research.rsk.dev/u/light)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2021, 3:14pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/rskip-x-expanding-the-emergency-multisig/218/1 "2021-08-18T15:14:06Z")
Hello, I have created a draft RSKIP with co-author @SergioDemianLerner `RSKIP-X: Expanding the emergency multisig`. The purpose of the proposal is to expand the Iris emergency multisig from a 3-of-4 multisig to a 7-of-12 multisig using Schnorr key aggregation for cost savings. I view this change as one more stepping stone on the path to hardening the peg via other more elaborate methods, such as setting up a full backup Powpeg (discussed as an alternative considered in the RSKIP) and/or other methods such as a hashrate escrow or zk-SNARK two-way peg. You can find the text of the RSKIP for review here: [https://github.com/rsksmart/RSKIPs/pull/268](https://github.com/rsksmart/RSKIPs/pull/268) ---
**Author:** ![SergioDemianLerner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/779978/32.png) [@SergioDemianLerner](https://research.rsk.dev/u/SergioDemianLerner)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2021, 10:18pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/rskip-x-expanding-the-emergency-multisig/218/2 "2021-08-18T22:18:36Z")
As a co-author, I fully support this improvement. There is a change from the last draft version I read: you added signature aggregation to it, which is great but as we discussed, this will delay the implementation until the RSK bridge accepts/creates Taproot transactions. I don’t think that we’ll be able to support Taproot in the next hardfork, but in the following. Still sooner than any UTXO time-lock could potentially expire. If we want Taproot activated in the next RSK hard fork, then we better find more core devs to work on it. ---
**Author:** ![light](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/research.rsk.dev/light/32/59_2.png) [@light](https://research.rsk.dev/u/light)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2021, 4:33am UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/rskip-x-expanding-the-emergency-multisig/218/3 "2021-08-19T04:33:17Z")
> [@SergioDemianLerner](#): > > There is a change from the last draft version I read: you added signature aggregation to it, which is great but as we discussed, this will delay the implementation until the RSK bridge accepts/creates Taproot transactions. > I don’t think that we’ll be able to support Taproot in the next hardfork, but in the following. Still sooner than any UTXO time-lock could potentially expire. Yes, I am expecting Taproot + Schnorr key aggregation support to come not in the next hard fork but the following. Thank you for clarifying that here as well 👍 And thank you for your help with this Sergio! ---
**Author:** ![bguiz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@bguiz](https://research.rsk.dev/u/bguiz)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2021, 5:37am UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/rskip-x-expanding-the-emergency-multisig/218/4 "2021-08-19T05:37:50Z")
Awesome, looking forward to this RSKIP [in the community call](https://research.rsk.dev/t/community-call-july-august-2021/204)