It points out that the link provided as evidence of such discussion merely contains three posts, with the conversation ceasing in February and lacking substantial engagement from other participants. The replies present noted potential incompatibilities with existing implementations, underscoring a lack of consensus or further development on the idea. The sender criticizes the portrayal of the proposal as being thoroughly analyzed or discussed, labeling such representation as dishonest and potentially harmful. Furthermore, it is mentioned that there is no evidence of running code or meaningful dialogue among Lightning Network implementations and stakeholders regarding this proposal, indicating its stagnation and lack of acceptance within the broader community.

Moreover, the email touches upon the comparison between the discussed proposal and RBFR (Replace-By-Fee R), suggesting that the latter has received more attention and constructive discussion within the thread. This comparison serves to underline the relative importance and consideration given to RBFR over the initial proposal. Despite acknowledging the proposal as a possible interim solution, the sender regards it as a mere hack rather than a sustainable or long-term fix. The skepticism extends to the suggestion of permanently specifying TRUC/V3, which is deemed an unnecessary complication given the current context and the proposal's apparent lack of momentum and support.

For more information, interested parties can visit Peter Todd's website.