I would comment on this point, but I'm not sure I'm "technical enough". I have to admit: I've never played tennis.

You are technicial enough to read the nacks... everyone is:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc

I can give a summary of the nack arguments here on one sentence:    "I am resisting a consensus change because we don't have consensus"

It's lovely recursive logic

------

The most cogent *technical* arguments against ctv seem fall into 3 camps:

1. APO is better for eltoo:

https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/1518007923896578048?s=20&t=8IUgni_i5jcfSlJ1Gy7T1A

2. CTV doesn't have recursion, but i want recursion... which are swiftly followed by arguments against recursion:

(I usually ignore this one)

3. TLUV is super cool for vaults, so why are we even talking about CTV when TLUV is better?

I like this (positive vibes) summary:

https://raymonddurk.medium.com/bitcoin-after-taproot-86c93fe5cc0c

Nowhere in there would anyone say CTV is "bad".   

Just that other opcodes will wind up being used more because they are more purpose-fit for <insert use case here>

If only we had unlimited resources we could have APO/TLUV;/CTV all ready to go and be able to evaluate them on a level playing field / signet.

Does this sound about right?   Am I missing something?

- Erik