The suggestion to reset this network has sparked concerns due to its long-standing presence and the potential impact on developers who rely on it. Given its age, abruptly discontinuing testnet3 without a proper transition plan and sufficient notice to developers is viewed as a drastic and ill-advised move. Consequently, it has been suggested that the Bitcoin client should support both testnet3 and the newly proposed testnet4 simultaneously to ensure a smoother transition and provide developers with adequate time to adjust.

Moreover, there's a recognition of the challenges associated with mining on the test network, indicating regret that the situation escalated to its current state. This touches on the broader issue of how new users will acquire coins on testnet4, questioning whether they will need to launch a full node and invest in ASIC mining hardware. The viability of faucets—a common method for distributing testnet coins—also comes into question, with expectations set for a temporary halt in their operation, leading to most becoming defunct. This raises concerns about the accessibility of testnet coins, suggesting that without ease of access and sufficient availability, a small market for these coins might persist.

Finally, the email speculates on possible adjustments to the economic model of testnet4 to prevent the issues faced by testnet3. One idea floated is to deviate from the main network's approach by either keeping the block reward constant and uncapped to ensure coins remain plentiful and low in value or by periodically resetting the network to prevent the accumulation of value over time. This reflects an effort to balance the utility of the test network with the need to prevent the emergence of a speculative market for testnet coins.