Do all Native Segwit addresses begin with bc1q?

[ABCbits]

I know that Taproot addresses are starting with bc1p, and Native Sewgit addresses start with bc1q.

and here is the funny..
taproot was promoted that "no one will be able to distinguish if its a standard transaction or a taproot transaction.."
um.. the 'q' and 'p' kind of give it away

1. Whoever said that explain Taproot poorly or fooled by media which overestimate Taproot capability.
2. It doesn't apply to P2SH-P2TR or P2WSH-P2TR.
3. The 'q' in 'bc1q' doesn't refer to Taproot.

[pooya87]

and here is the funny..
taproot was promoted that "no one will be able to distinguish if its a standard transaction or a taproot transaction.."
um.. the 'q' and 'p' kind of give it away

Even more funny is that you've been criticizing things you don't even understand.
What taproot "hides" is branches in the script that aren't used in spending that output and only reveals what is necessary. That way not only it reduces the size but also increases functionality since the same output could for example be used in another layer or a side chain with those branches that weren't used on-chain.

The output itself is also indistinguishable since you can't tell whether one key owns it or multiple or whether a complex script is the key to spending that output.

2. It doesn't apply to P2SH-P2TR or P2WSH-P2TR.

Keep in mind that such outputs can be spent by anyone since there are no consensus rules for how they are spent. They will be considered non-standard if received in mempool and verification of them is skipped if they are found in a block.

[o_e_l_e_o]

No one will be able to distinguish the spending conditions of the taproot transaction. Given that taproot will use entirely different signatures, different locking scripts, even different OP codes, it will obviously be trivial to identify taproot outputs. Indeed, there has been plenty of discussion about how early adopters of taproot will become part of a smaller subset of users and will therefore have reduced privacy in the short term.

None of this is new information and has been known and discussed for years.

[dkbit98]

and here is the funny..
taproot was promoted that "no one will be able to distinguish if its a standard transaction or a taproot transaction.."
um.. the 'q' and 'p' kind of give it away

There is nothing funny about that, and you came up with your own twisted conclusion about that.
Now you can't really distinguish if address is used for single or for multisig setup, and in due time more people will use Taproot address, just like most people today use bc1 segwit addresses.
It helps if you actually read how Taproot works directly even if you are not a tech expert, instead of reading random tweets and videos from some trolls.
My conclusion is that Taproot is not a magic stick that fixes everything, but it has some nice benefits and adoption is slowly growing if we look at the stats.