1/ The vast majority of bitcoin users are passive. They will never care about any technical discussion on protocol upgrades. Whether they save or spend, hold a lot or a little, they simply use a bitcoin wallet and get on with their lives. This is just a fact, it will not change.

2/ Many CTV proponents are using this general, unavoidable apathy to justify the activation of CTV. Opposition is framed as a minority made up of a combination of entitled devs and noisy, non-technical users.

Based on this framing, they compare CTV to Taproot...

3/ Summarising:
- Few bitcoin users understood Taproot
- Taproot still got activated and no one complained
- Few bitcoin users understand CTV
- CTV opposition only represents a tiny % of the total bitcoin user base
- Therefore it's only fair that CTV gets activated too

4/ The problem with this logic is that at any one time, there will only ever be a minority of bitcoin users that pay attention to and care about bitcoin protocol upgrades.

The maximum opposition to any bitcoin update is guaranteed to be limited to a subset of that minority.

5/ By dismissing hesitancy and criticism from experienced developers (that have successfully stewarded the bitcoin protocol over the last decade) and highly-invested users, you essentially greenlight any soft-fork consensus change that achieves any noticeable dev backing.

6/ Lowering the bar for protocol changes is not in bitcoin's interests. Risks include:
a) Exposing each of bitcoin's unique properties to a greater risk of change.
b) Expanding bitcoin's security vulnerability surface.
c) Increasing the chance of a chaotic chainsplit.

7/ It is abundantly clear through discourse online that CTV is a controversial update within the minority that cares—both developers and users. To ensure a conservative precedent is set for protocol updates, their concerns should be addressed before attempting activation.

8/ No one is saying Core developers should have absolute veto power over protocol changes, nor should any small amount of opposition online prevent urgent or critical updates being made to bitcoin. These are genuine potential threats that may need dealing with if they ever arise.

9/ But you can't rely on the fact that most bitcoin users aren't aware (or fully understand the nuts and bolts) of *any* upcoming protocol changes as justification to steamroll genuine opposition. Most bitcoin users will ever have an opinion about what goes on under the hood.

10/ There's no urgency for covenants. No crisis. All the more reason it's worth listening to the people that take bitcoin seriously and being patient with consensus. Even if that takes a few years. You have to read the room.