It suggests that those who prefer alternative solutions, such as CAT, have the option to develop and rally support for their own activation clients, noting the availability of version bits for such endeavors. The message points out that while CAT enjoys popularity and broad support, it also faces significant opposition from segments of the community that chose not to participate in its selection process.

The discussion further highlights that PAIRCOMMIT's inclusion does not stem from a lack of controversy but rather from its lack of significant objectionable use cases, contrasting with the perception of some community members who favor CAT, possibly without substantial technical justification. It mentions that the age of proposals tends to correlate with their support levels, with PAIRCOMMIT being an exception due to its novel capabilities, such as facilitating interactions with Merkle trees and multi-element commitments in script. This capability is presented as providing unique value that was previously unattainable.

Moreover, the dialogue elaborates on the technical comparison between PAIRCOMMIT and CAT, arguing that PAIRCOMMIT is not inherently more complex and, in many practical scenarios, offers a more efficient and secure solution than CAT, particularly in terms of witness malleability. This efficiency and security aspect is underscored as a critical consideration in the choice of PAIRCOMMIT over CAT within the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), aiming to address specific technical challenges effectively.