It emphasizes the pitfalls of hasty consensus changes without due consideration of their content and impact. The preference for a Bitcoin that evolves through occasional, necessary consensus changes backed by community agreement is evident. However, it acknowledges that if achieving such deliberate and collective decision-making proves unattainable, a static or "ossified" Bitcoin would be a preferable state over one that experiences unchecked modifications leading to potential harm or functional impairments.

This viewpoint reflects a protective stance towards the integrity of Bitcoin, advocating for a careful balance between innovation and stability. It underscores the importance of community involvement and the dangers of arbitrary updates, suggesting that a more conservative approach to development might better preserve Bitcoin's value and functionality in the long term. The argument implicitly criticizes certain dynamics within the Bitcoin community, warning against the risks associated with rapid and ill-considered changes to the cryptocurrency's underlying consensus rules.