The attack was in your implication that I would assume  ill intent of those contributed to the proposal. That is not my position. I explained why, I think, rolling out a commitment could face opposition. This foreseable opposition, that must not come from you makes me prefer a provable uncommitted filter for now.
I did restart the discussion which I read and participated in at its first instance because implementing the current proposal taught me how problematic as is until not committed and because I have not seen a sign to assume commitment was imminent.

This is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not even have a consensus on how any future soft fork would be activated. 

While trying to build a useful software I have to make assumtions on the timeline of dependencies and in my personal evaluation commitment is not yet to build on.

I and others learned in this new discussion new arguments such as that of atomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing else, this was worth of learning.

It appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my side, which hurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years and have not ever been caught of hurting the project.

Tamas Blummer