Yes I do realize and I know well that the recent developments in China should result in the suspension of any signaling period! Signaling for taproot under this conditions is unacceptable!
You fail to explain why other than (what appears to be kneejerk) "China bad".
Taproot has wide consensus. It has been extensively worked on by both developers and non-developers alike. There is widespread agreement to activate it. The few concerns that have been brought up have been addressed or are generally unsubstantiated. Taproot itself is not a product of China. Just because Chinese miners are signaling activation for it does not mean that it is bad or they are doing something evil. Even so, even if miners were somehow going to change Taproot to be evil, no nodes will accept such a change. Those miners will fork themselves off onto something that no one uses.
Foundry USA owned by the Digital Currency Group which also the owner of Blockstream
No, DCG does not own Blockstream. Blockstream is no owned by anyone or corporation. DCG is an investor in Blockstream, and Blockstream works with DCG, but that does not mean they own Blockstream. Blockstream has many investors and none have ownership or controlling stake in the company.
But before the signaling period they did know that China will soon announce this crackdown on Miners,
Who are they? DCG? Blockstream? Me? Gmaxwell?
I can tell you for sure that I do not know anything about Foundry USA nor do I know anything about Chinese miners moving into the US or whatever conspiracy theory you seem to be spouting.
on that way implementing a "soft-fork" which seems like a horse with a "hard-dick" behind your back waiting for your signal.
You seem to imply that this soft fork is being thrust upon the community under some kind of threat. Yet clearly that is not the case. Taproot is something that many people want.
Don't come here and tell me that gmaxwell and achow101 don't know nothing about the Foundry USA, Blockstream and Digital Currency Group BS,
I'll tell you myself: I haven't the faintest idea about what you are talking about. Maybe there is some grand conspiracy between the company officers, DCG, and Foundry USA, but I know nothing about that. Even if there were, the code has been reviewed extensively, I have reviewed the code myself. The idea is technologically sound. There really isn't anything that such a conspiracy could do other than activate Taproot, which, again, is something that has widespread support.
there is no other reason behind taproot, Grayscale, Foundry USA, DCG, and Blockstream plans but brutal DOMINANCE and OWNERSHIP owner the Bitcoin software.
Ah, the classic "Blockstream controls everything" conspiracy. I think I'm starting to get your train of thought.
In any case, Taproot does not give anyone control or ownership of the Bitcoin software. I don't think you understand how any of this works. Furthermore, while the idea of Taproot did originate at Blockstream, development of the idea and of the code itself involved many people, the vast majority of which work for companies other than Blockstream.
And if you think Taproot has "no other reason", I don't think you actually understand what Taproot even is.
All Bitcoin Core developers should be forbidden to work for any cryptocurrency related for-profit corporation.
I'd love to if people would pay me to continue working on Bitcoin Core full time. But alas, for the most part, the people who have that kind of cash tend to be corporations that make a profit. Even so, Blockstream does not instruct me on what to implement into Core, or how to implement it. I have a great deal of autonomy in what I work on, and from speaking with other developers, many who work on BItcoin and are employed by for profit corporations have similar situations.
Taproot is a product of Blockstream and I bet that gmaxwell has an unfulfilled contract with the Digital Currency Group to implement taproot. It is contractual so it must be done. Is that right?
This makes literally zero sense. Gmaxwell is barely involved in Taproot at all. He did some developmental work of the concept and some code review, but Greg has not been involved in the activation discussions whatsoever. All of those discussions were public and logged, so you can see for yourself. There's nothing "contractual" about activating Taproot, it is an improvement to Bitcoin that has widespread community support, that is why it is being activated.