It's far simpler than SegWit, there's even less reason for controversy around it, and it won't be done using the BIP9 process which caused SegWit's unnecessary delays. I could see the Schnorr softfork completing next year.
So in order to add schnorr signatures, we will not go through another dramafest of mining wars fighting each other with hashrate signaling different things?
If I remember correctly satoshi used in the past softforks that didn't need mining signaling (basically a UASF? but there wasn't a name for it back then). Im not sure why segwit took that route. Was it simply to allow miners to have their say with their hashrate or was it because of technical reasons that needed it to be implemented that way?
That's because SegWit developer use "anyone-can-spend" and remove signature part of transaction as method for backward compability where it can be used to steal Bitcoin if majority nodes/miners don't support/use client that support SegWit.
And this is one of the argument used by opposition used to stall/disrupt consensus years ago.
AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.
Im aware of the segwit controversies and why it caused that. My point is, there are very conservative people in bitcoin and will basically reject forever anything that isn't a legacy transaction (addresses which begin with 1 only, and nothing else, as valid bitcoin transactions).
There is people that say the incentives to do an attack on segwit aren't there, and other's say that on a long enough timeline, the incentives will align and only these holding their coins in legacy addresses will be safe (therefore, the incentive to keep your coins in legacy addresses is already formed, unless you believe this to be nonsense and you are sure it will never happen)