The primary issue addressed is the potential for counter-parties to exploit older update states, which may lead to complications if not properly managed. This concern highlights the importance of keeping track of update states efficiently, suggesting that one could remember O(n) fields as an alternative to relying on the annex. However, this approach raises questions about its practicality and effectiveness.

Further exploration into the matter reveals a strategy where, upon a counter-party presenting an old update, one would respond by spending it with a new update. This method is hinted at as being a fundamental solution to the problem at hand. Yet, there seems to be confusion or a lack of clarity regarding the specifics of how Taproot details influence this process. The mention of possibly overlooking a crucial aspect of Taproot functionality indicates a need for deeper understanding or clarification of the mechanism by which Taproot commitments are managed and updated in response to potential exploitation attempts by counter-parties.

This conversation underscores the complexity and nuanced nature of managing state updates within blockchain protocols, particularly concerning the innovative Taproot commitment scheme. It also reflects an ongoing dialogue among programmers to refine and optimize strategies for ensuring the integrity and efficiency of such systems.