Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 18, 2020, 11:21:27 AM

Quote from: squatter on February 18, 2020, 10:12:20 AM

The group's concerns re: privacy and efficiency aren't necessarily malicious. Either way, I think they were adequately addressed by these replies:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-February/017621.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-February/017623.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-February/017630.html

Tinfoil hats on, what if that "group", who might only actually be an "individual", wants seperate proposals only because it sets each for another scenario for contention.

OR, what if someone wants Schnorr+Taproot blocked like how Jihan Wu wanted Segwit blocked because it disables an exploit/covert-ASIC-boost?

Conspiracy theories aside, it would already be prudent to prepare for that possibility:

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 28, 2020, 05:56:13 AM

Right now I don't think the current amount of engineering interest in Bitcoin is particularly healthy. Many long time contributors, including myself, have essentially stopped contributing for a variety of reasons (including uncertainty around political disruption of deploying even fairly boring new consensus changes, concern that too much bitcoin hashpower is controlled by bitcoin adversarial parties who would attempt to block protocol improvements, etc. on top of more generic factors).

There is also Pieter Wuille's typically conservative opinion that consensus changes should be difficult and/or take a long time to implement:

Quote from: Pieter Wuille

I really don't care when things activate, or end up in use. Changes like this should be hard.