The critique points out that the methodology used in these instances, which relied on proposers voting on competing proposals, did not yield a clean or clear-cut result. It suggests that a more effective approach to achieving consensus would be to ask participants if all their objections or concerns have been addressed, aiming for a unanimous "yes" as an indication of consensus, or accepting a "rough" consensus even if some disagreements persist.

Further, the message expresses skepticism towards the seriousness with which proposals are being treated, illustrated by a recent claim made via social media about creating scripts for lightning-symmetry using undocumented opcodes. This claim, highlighted as not having any practical chance of success due to the use of an imagined opcode, underscores a broader issue of proposals not being rigorously tested or considered before being shared publicly. Such practices raise doubts about the commitment of proponents to their proposals and the overall seriousness with which the development community approaches consensus and proposal vetting.

This situation underlines the importance of thorough testing and validation within the development process, suggesting that more rigorous standards and a more structured approach to consensus might benefit the community. The critique implicitly calls for a higher level of professionalism and responsibility among those proposing changes or new features to the Bitcoin protocol, emphasizing the need for a consensus-building process that is both inclusive and methodically sound.