The primary concern highlighted is the economic cost to users required to participate in signaling, which could be prohibitive for those with funds in inaccessible setups, such as vaults or timelocks, effectively excluding them from the process. This setup also creates an opportunity for spammers, who, due to their likely possession of readily available funds in hot wallets, could simulate support at a low cost, thus manipulating the signaling outcome.

Further analysis raises concerns about the role of transaction fees in this mechanism. The variability in fee levels chosen by users introduces misaligned incentives, where miners may prioritize transactions based on fee size rather than genuine support for a proposal, without necessarily understanding or caring about the softfork in question. This scenario necessitates universal miner cooperation to avoid misleading signals, a requirement that seems impractical to achieve. Moreover, transactions with lower fees face challenges in remaining visible within mempools, posing additional risks of manipulation through transaction eviction or disappearance, underscoring the complexities involved in maintaining transaction visibility and integrity.

The email also critiques the proposed method's reliance on community analysis of transactions for consensus, pointing out the inefficiency and redundancy of individual user broadcasts when miners can signal through block inclusion directly. This approach is deemed inferior to existing signaling mechanisms, such as those used in version fields. Doubts are expressed regarding the proposal's ability to address the controversies surrounding existing Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) 8 and 9, questioning the overall effectiveness and necessity of the new signaling mechanism.

To conclude, the feedback encapsulates significant skepticism towards the proposed mechanism, highlighting three major flaws: the potential for miners to inadvertently "signal" through high-fee transactions, the economic burden and exclusion of certain users, and the vulnerability of the system to spam attacks. The programmer advises a thorough comparison with the detailed specifications of BIP8 and BIP9 before considering the proposal as a serious BIP candidate, suggesting alternative platforms for further discussion if the idea remains in its preliminary stages. Additionally, a caution against self-assigning BIP numbers is mentioned to prevent confusion or irritation within the community.