There is a faction that believes Bitcoin's current state is ideal, referring to it as "perfect money" and sees no need for changes. This viewpoint seems to stem from two main beliefs. Firstly, some individuals think that previous modifications, which allowed for inscriptions or ordinals, were detrimental, indicating a resistance to change due to past experiences. Secondly, there is a notion among non-technical observers that Bitcoin operates almost mystically, and any alterations could disrupt its functioning.

Another perspective within the community comes from those who only advocate for protocol changes if they are endorsed or put forth by well-respected figures, likened to saints within the Bitcoin world. This belief parallels the first viewpoint, treating Bitcoin as an intricate system that should only be tweaked under the guidance of certain trusted leaders.

Contrasting with these views is the idea that Bitcoin should adopt a method akin to the IETF rough consensus model, which does not aim for unanimous agreement but rather seeks a general accord that respects minority opinions without being hindered by them. However, applying this model to Bitcoin poses challenges, such as the absence of a designated chairperson responsible for declaring when rough consensus has been reached, which is a vital component in other contexts.

The pressing question moving into 2024 is how consensus changes should be determined in Bitcoin development. Historically, the process has been a blend of relying on trusted leaders and seeking a form of rough consensus. Recently, however, there has been reluctance from leaders to guide the consensus changes, and the concept of rough consensus has been tainted by previous conflicts, such as during the block size debate.

Given these circumstances, reaching a consensus in the current climate is difficult due to the lack of both trusted leaders and a mechanism like the chair in the rough consensus model. This situation has led to a fragmented developer community unable to even assess technical objections to potential changes. Moreover, the act of publishing or promoting a client that signals support for a consensus change is sometimes seen as antagonistic towards Bitcoin. Nonetheless, some argue that this might be the only way to identify where consensus lies, suggesting that economic nodes could serve as individual chairs in making this determination.

To continue Bitcoin's successful trajectory, it is deemed crucial to find a way to foster the development of consensus changes. One proposal is for the Bitcoin core project to release a client capable of validating various changes, with distinct signaling mechanisms allowing the community to gauge where consensus falls. The specifics of implementing activation clients, including configuration options for signaling bits and lock-in periods, are beyond the scope of this summary but are recognized as essential elements for achieving success in this endeavor.