there's no good reason why not (there aren't even any bad reasons as of yet)
You seem to be more optimistic than I am. I just get the impression that the developers are too conservative and think that we shouldn't implement things that are new because who knows what effect it will have on Bitcoin.
If you're completely honest and take off your perma bull cap, how long do you think it will take before we see taproot and Schnorr signatures implemented?
devs are genuinely accomplished computer scientists. you're in no position to be questioning their planning when...
after nearly a decade we so far have only had SegWit and LN as scalability/upgrades. That's what I consider a poor show. Not even a block size increase. This isn't what I consider progress.
The on-chain transaction throughput is capped at ~400k transactions on average with SegWit not gaining more adoption.
...all wrong. everything you've written above is incorrect
you cannot get basic facts correct, why place any importance on your badly informed pessimism
People may not be realistic in the sense that they expect Bitcoin to absorb every single gimmicky characteristic of an altcoin that they deem "useful", but I don't see why it won't be able to have a feature integrated if it really adds something to Bitcoin that we don't already have and makes it even better.
If it requires a hard fork then it's not going to happen no matter what.
if any fork is significantly better than what it forks from, it will become the dominant fork
maybe you can't imagine the added features that a hardfork could use to outcompete it's parent chain. that doesn't mean someone else can't. this is no different to those people who say (well, complain) that "everything has already been invented", it's a form of jealousy/contempt really. you could invent things yourself. but you just don't want to. don't be a hater.
