It suggests that adopting such a policy could lead to a significant shift towards transactions being directly submitted to miners. This change might reduce the overall visibility of pending transactions across the network, posing challenges for staging and confirmation processes.

One critical viewpoint expressed is the skepticism regarding the effectiveness of relying on users to block the propagation of an alternative to the DNR policy. Despite the theoretical possibility of user intervention, it is argued that miners, driven by their interests, are unlikely to adhere to user preferences if these conflict with their own. This situation could lead to a scenario where, despite user resistance, miners continue practices that could stagnate or negatively impact Bitcoin's growth. However, the argument acknowledges that this perspective might not fully capture the complexity of miner incentives and market dynamics.

Furthermore, the reliance on DNR-type mechanisms within applications is critiqued for its potential insecurity. The conversation warns against the adoption of such approaches, highlighting that they may introduce distortions and undesirable effects in the long term. This critique underscores the need for caution and thorough evaluation when considering changes to transaction propagation policies in decentralized networks like Bitcoin.