SLEdex on Nostr: Respectfully, I’d push back on removing Taproot. It’s the very upgrade that ...

Respectfully, I’d push back on removing Taproot. It’s the very upgrade that solves the problem you’re describing.
You want multisig privacy — Taproot with MuSig2 gives you exactly that. A key path spend looks identical to single-sig on chain. No script type leaking. No xpub exposure. That’s not possible without Taproot.
Beyond privacy, Taproot enables:
• Taproot Assets — USDC and USDT moving natively over Lightning. This is giving millions of people in high-inflation countries access to dollar savings for the first time, using Bitcoin’s own rails.
• More efficient channels — Lightning channel opens and closes are cheaper and more private with Taproot.
• Better smart contracts — MAST means complex spending conditions don’t bloat the chain. Only the path you use is revealed.
Removing Taproot would mean removing the best privacy tool Bitcoin has for multisig, removing the ability for stablecoins to run on Lightning, and removing the foundation for future upgrades like cross-input signature aggregation.
What specifically concerns you about it? Curious to understand the case against, because from where I sit — building P2P exchanges on Lightning using Taproot Assets — it’s the most important upgrade Bitcoin has had since SegWit.