The crux of the matter lies in the proposal to implement a limit on block timestamps to prevent potential attacks on the network. The original suggestion was to enforce a two-hour limit on every block's timestamp to ensure that if the median of past timestamps (MPT) falls more than two hours in the past, it could not be exploited by attackers to manipulate external applications that rely on this information but may not have implemented such a limit themselves.

However, this initial proposal has been reevaluated due to concerns that a two-hour restriction is overly restrictive and could inadvertently alter the MPT consensus rule, upon which much software depends. Such a change could make it easier for malicious entities to launch attacks against the system by submitting a block with a timestamp more than two hours in the past if the MPT is already beyond this threshold. This realization underscores the importance of making consensus rule changes as minimal as possible to avoid unintended consequences.

A refined approach suggests applying Murch's timestamp limit only at every 2016th block, rather than imposing it on each block. This method aims to maintain the integrity of the blockchain without overhauling the consensus rule entirely. However, there are concerns regarding this approach's lack of "symmetry," "consistency," "simplicity," or "beauty," which some argue might introduce unknown risks due to its selective application. The fear is that by not applying the rule uniformly across all blocks, it may not address all potential vulnerabilities, thereby posing a risk to the network's security.

The debate also touches on broader issues within blockchain design and implementation, using Satoshi Nakamoto's decisions regarding bitcoin as case studies. It's argued that Satoshi's choices prioritized mathematical and coding simplicity over consistency and gradual progress, which has led to challenges such as mining fluctuations and investment uncertainties for miners. These examples serve to illustrate the potential pitfalls of not considering the long-term implications of design choices within blockchain technology.

In conclusion, while there's an acknowledgment that applying Murch's fix to every block could simplify code and reduce risk by making it easier to detect issues through more frequent testing, the community remains divided on the best path forward. The discussion suggests that a compromise involving a less restrictive limit than two hours, possibly extending to one day, could offer a safer alternative. This debate highlights the complexities of blockchain governance and the need for careful consideration when implementing changes to consensus rules, emphasizing the balance between security, efficiency, and the unforeseeable impact on external dependencies.