The author expresses a viewpoint that since the activation of Taproot in 2021, there has been a noticeable stagnation in consensus discussions. This situation is attributed to the absence of a trial-and-error design and development process similar to that which facilitated the successful implementation of Schnorr/Taproot changes. It's notable that the concept of using a merkle tree to commit to a set of scripts was proposed as early as 2013.

Taproot's design and development process is cited as a model of how open, rigorous debate and flexible proposals can coalesce into concrete technical improvements within Bitcoin. From the initial debates between more templated approaches versus those allowing greater application flexibility, to the public review processes and industry workshops, each step contributed significantly to Taproot's eventual implementation. The process saw proposals evolve through public scrutiny and collaboration, leading to a series of implementation pull requests and extensive code reviews before finally being merged.

Post-Taproot activation, there have been efforts to further improve the Bitcoin script system. An example mentioned is Jeremy's early 2021 proposal for CTV (CheckTemplateVerify), which despite not gaining sufficient activation support, served as a learning experience for protocol developers. Efforts to foster open discussions among covenant developers were also made, such as organizing IRC meetings to encourage the exchange of technical ideas within the community. However, challenges remain, including the discontinuation of certain working groups and initiatives due to a lack of expert review and engagement.

The narrative then shifts to the broader issue of fostering open and public communication spaces within the Bitcoin ecosystem. The author criticizes the current state of discourse, which is often dominated by a few veterans, and underscores the importance of such spaces for high-standard scientific and engineering discussions. Suggestions include using bounties to support open processes like IRC meetings, archiving discussions on covenants and Bitcoin script extensions, and reinstating major conferences disrupted by the pandemic.

Reflections on past conflicts within the Bitcoin community, such as the block size war, highlight the need for balanced dialogue between developers and industry stakeholders. The piece concludes with considerations on the geopolitical implications of Bitcoin development, suggesting future conferences be held in geopolitically neutral locations to ensure inclusivity and neutrality. Such measures are deemed essential for safeguarding the open and collaborative spirit of Bitcoin development amidst increasing attention from nation-states and political actors.

For further reference, the email includes links to various resources and discussions that have taken place within the Bitcoin development community:

• Taproot proposal May 2019
• CoreDev NYC March 2018 transcript
• Taproot open review process Autumn 2019
• Bitcoin Optech workshops