The document highlights the inherent cost associated with signaling within Bitcoin transactions, which is not the primary aim of the BIP but an unavoidable aspect since Bitcoin transactions require fees. This mechanism inherently limits signaling to economically active users whose transactions reflect genuine economic activity, thereby providing a more meaningful insight into consensus changes.

There's an exploration of different methodologies for signaling support for BIPs, discussing the viability of using transaction features like nLockTime for this purpose. The document points out that many transactions currently set nLockTime to zero, which could allow for signaling compatibility for at least the next 12 years, as evidenced by data from Blockchair. However, it also recognizes challenges such as the inability of some users to signal if they are unwilling or unable to switch their software, proposing the development of a website to facilitate adjusting the nLockTime of unsigned PSBTs manually.

The proposal suggests innovative solutions to overcome limitations in signaling, such as treating nLockTime as a bit array to allow a single transaction to show support for multiple proposals, drawing inspiration from BIP 9's approach. This method aims to refine how support is quantified and interpreted, acknowledging that the volume of transactions signaling support might not directly translate to unanimous community endorsement.

Through hypothetical scenarios involving transaction analysis by individuals named Alice and Bob, the discussion delves into the interpretation of signaling data. It illustrates varying perspectives on the significance of transactions signaling support, based on the context and perceived importance of the economic activities they represent, such as significant transfers by major entities like Bitfinex.

The discussion touches on the perception of non-signaling transactions, considering them not necessarily as opposition but rather as a neutral stance due to various reasons, including technical constraints or preference for expressing views through other channels such as technical reviews or tests on mailing lists. It acknowledges the complexity of interpreting miners' actions, emphasizing that the inclusion of signaling transactions is not tantamount to explicit endorsement of soft forks, given the decentralized nature of Bitcoin's network and the necessity for careful coordination before activation.