Raystonn, in an email, clarifies that "hard" forks are required for hard consensus changes while "soft" forks can be useful. Jorge Timón disagrees with Raystonn's earlier statement that suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. He argues that improvements require changes to the consensus rules and cites examples like relative lock time verify or SegWit, which have made things like lightning much easier and efficient. He further mentions that Taproot, a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning protocol even further and make it more efficient and its usage more private. He ends by saying that Bitcoin's resistance to consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and corrupted. The email exchange highlights the importance of consensus protocol changes in improving Bitcoin's efficiency and addressing user needs. While Raystonn believes that consensus changes should only be made if there is clear and convincing evidence that Bitcoin will die without them, Timón argues that such changes are necessary for continuous improvement. The discussion also touches upon the role of hard forks and soft forks in implementing these changes. Overall, the conversation reflects the ongoing debate within the Bitcoin community about the balance between maintaining the network's stability and adapting to changing user needs through protocol changes.