There's a shared belief among participants that increasing restrictions could potentially introduce risks rather than mitigating them, highlighting the importance of maintaining Bitcoin as a stable and reliable platform for development. The analogy drawn with Microsoft emphasizes the value of ensuring backward compatibility and stability, suggesting that breaking existing software could lead to significant damage not just on a technical level but also in terms of the cryptocurrency's perception and overall systemic value.

Further emphasis is placed on adhering to recommendations that advocate for the least restrictive measures as the safest path forward, underscoring the need for careful consideration of changes that involve setting specific parameters which might appear arbitrary. The reference to past advice from nullc concerning the timewarp issue reinforces this perspective, advocating for a cautious approach to modifications. The argument suggests that some issues, like the timewarp bug, are better left unaddressed in the main chain, positing that they could serve strategic purposes or be resolved if they manifest, especially given the existence of more critical security vulnerabilities such as a 51% attack. This viewpoint is particularly contrasted with the situation on testnet, where there's an acknowledgment of greater risk necessitating attention.