6. LOT=true vs LOT=false developer split — 19 devs opposed the Speedy Trial approach (Feb 2021)
   https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Taproot_activation_proposal_202102

Only five of the nineteen people supporting LOT=true exclusively wanted LOT=true, 14 were fine with either LOT=true or LOT=false. Anyway, that’s just about the activation, not Taproot itself.

These are good links! Attach a wallet or post a lightning address or a invoice and I will send you sats.

1. It may be a little pedantic, but I was hoping for criticism of Taproot itself. I have a number of posts by Luke that exhibit strong support for Taproot, even if he was not pleased with the activation method.
2. The quantum discussion around Taproot is interesting and this is a great link! It's interesting to note that Luke says "I do not personally see this as a reason to NACK Taproot" and Corallo says "This has been discussed ad nauseam, and it all seems to fall apart once its noted just how much Bitcoin could be stolen by any QC-wielding attacker due to address reuse. Ultimately, no "pause" can solve this issue, and, if we learned about a QC attacker overnight (instead of slowly over time), there isn't anything that a non Taproot Bitcoin could do that a Taproot Bitcoin couldn't."
3. The Mark Friedenbach example is excellent. @1440000bytes also posted it. Thank you.
4. The Nikita Zhavoronkov link is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.
5. This bitcointalk thread is not exactly critical of Taproot. pretty much everyone, even the OP seem to be in favor of it. But the OP does link to an article that has a bunch of shitcoiners expressing criticism of Bitcoin more than Taproot. But I hadn't read it before, so it was interesting.
6. I see the debate about LOT=true vs LOT=false as a criticism of activation method, not Taproot. See # 1.