Hi Ariel
> I think Bitcoin is fine staying as is until that minority forks off with their own alt-node.... A quick UASF fork allows for an early LOT=false activation.
I think you misunderstand BIP 8 (LOT=true). Although no timetable has been finalized as of yet (and hence we are in the realm of speculation rather than facts), the earliest the MUST_SIGNAL period would kick in is around July 2022. That doesn't sound very quick to me if you seek a LOT=false release after a LOT=true release has failed to activate.
> The current risk to taproot and all future activations is a loud minority of users who are threatening to co-opt a LOT=false activation by switching the parameter
As I've said in previous emails to this list, some people are determined to ignore the discussion and (open to all) meetings of recent weeks and block progress until they find their philosopher's stone. They seek to ignore all the work people have done laying out the options, communicating those options to the community and narrowing them down. Instead they bring up alternative proposals which were discussed and rejected weeks or months ago. With this mindset we'll still be arguing about Taproot activation in 2030.
I get that there isn't overwhelming consensus on the LOT parameter, this is a fact. But there won't be overwhelming consensus on any activation mechanism, that has become clear. I am of the view that consensus on one parameter of an activation mechanism does not need to be as high as it is on the actual soft fork that is being activated (which does have overwhelming consensus). And of course if and when a LOT=true (UASF) version is released you are absolutely free not to run it. I hope (and suspect) you would reconsider if July 2022 (or later) was approaching and it was the only way to activate Taproot.
Thanks
Michael