The conversation highlights that while patches for BIP-118 and BIP-119 have been stable, there are still outstanding changes to BIP-118 that may be desirable, as indicated in an issue tracked on GitHub. Contrary to claims of thorough scrutiny, it is argued that neither BIP-118 nor BIP-119 has undergone sufficient review. Furthermore, BIP-345 has not been officially published yet, raising concerns about the readiness of these proposals for activation.

The dialogue also touches upon the demonstrations of wallet implementations for vaults under BIP-345, pointing out that such examples exist but reference a project with its first commit made only two weeks prior to the discussion. This raises questions about the maturity of the implementation and whether it serves as a solid argument for activating consensus changes. The implementation for these changes, consisting of approximately 7,000 lines of code including tests, is critiqued for not being comprehensively tested, especially since implementing proposed changes to BIP-118 does not affect unit tests, and no test vectors are provided with the BIP.

The conversation concludes with recommendations for next steps before considering activation of these changes. These include making it easier for individuals to try out demos to understand the value of the proposed features, improving tooling (particularly noting that even Taproot lacks comprehensive tooling), ensuring thorough reviews including more tests and possibly tweaking the API, and ensuring the community can understand and evaluate the proposed changes on their merits. The focus is on demonstrating the viability and security of the proposals through public demos and attacks, enhancing tools for better adoption and evaluation, and engaging in more rigorous review processes to ensure the proposals' strengths and areas for improvement are well understood.