This raises questions about the relatively low developer interest and user excitement towards presigned vaults despite their potential to offer a 2x-5x improvement in certain applications. The analogy with Linux and Windows NT is used to underscore the importance of ease of use and the perceived value of technological advancements.

Further examination reveals skepticism regarding the security benefits of presigned vaults. A detailed account from 2019 suggests that while it might be possible to simulate OP_VAULT functionalities using a Hardware Security Module (HSM) trusted by the user, this does not inherently necessitate a shift towards presigned vaults if the HSM can already adequately protect against unauthorized withdrawals. This perspective implies that the real appeal of OP_VAULT lies in its provision for withdrawing everything to an offline wallet to prevent theft, an aspect potentially undervalued in presigned vault scenarios.

The conversation shifts to the broader challenges of achieving consensus changes in Bitcoin, particularly those promoted by business interests, which are deemed highly unlikely. It is argued that even substantial improvements become marginal when factoring in the low probability of consensus change success. This leads to a suggestion that enhancing demonstrations and educational outreach, such as workshops or podcasts, could foster a greater understanding and interest in these technologies.

Lastly, the discourse touches upon John Law’s tunable penalties protocol as an innovative solution that offers significant advantages similar to LN-Symmetry, including better penalty assignments in multi-party channels, without necessitating a consensus change. However, it acknowledges the current limitations and challenges facing multi-party channels and emphasizes the benefits of maintaining a constant state for channel closure and fund claims, despite recognising that achieving these benefits in adversarial conditions remains uncertain without additional protocols akin to APO.