The author, being one of the contributors to the CAT proposal, expresses no technical objections to the introduction of PAIRCOMMIT, acknowledging its simplicity and the valuable functionality it introduces to the system. However, the primary concern raised revolves around the underlying rationale for opting for PAIRCOMMIT over CAT, particularly based on the assumption regarding the Bitcoin community's preference for limited expressiveness which CAT offers.

The discourse further explores the designed limitations of PAIRCOMMIT in terms of expressiveness as compared to CAT, suggesting that PAIRCOMMIT is intentionally less expressive to prevent simulation of CAT functionalities. Despite this intention, the author remains unconvinced about the impossibility of simulating CAT with PAIRCOMMIT and expresses uncertainty about the extent of reduced power in PAIRCOMMIT vis-à-vis CAT. This brings to light questions about the potential of PAIRCOMMIT in enabling arbitrary computation by leveraging STARKs with its merkle trees, a point that appears not to have been contested by those opposing CAT, indicating possibly an overlooked aspect or acceptance of PAIRCOMMIT’s capabilities among detractors.

The author concludes by reiterating support for CAT while also favoring PAIRCOMMIT, highlighting a nuanced stance that seeks further clarity on the limits and possibilities of PAIRCOMMIT within the Bitcoin development ecosystem. This reflection underscores a broader dialogue on balancing expressiveness and functionality in cryptocurrency protocols without compromising on the principles and preferences of the community involved.