Quote from: AliceGored on June 27, 2016, 12:18:00 AM

Im saying your point wasnt sufficiently sharpened.

Malleability isnt an actual problem for most applications. Where it is a problem, for LN type payment contracts, it can be fixed by segwit, which they will use. So, while you declared a true statement in the snapshot of today, you didnt follow with what that means for us which explains the blunt tip of your reply.

Quote from: ziiip on June 27, 2016, 12:21:50 AM

If it's not an actual problem, then what is segwit good for besides moving transactions off chain? At the end of the day someone still has to relay them. . .

Quote from: AliceGored on June 27, 2016, 12:18:00 AM

Let's face it, they are a breakthrough that really could be a serious force multiplier for Bitcoin. Segwit brings big benefits too in terms of validation costs, it's more than just malleability.

I'm for fair competition of different solutions, on-chain/off-chain/hybrids, etc... I only complain about the economic incentives being tilted in favor of a "chosen" solution by an infallible priesthood of Core devs.

I understand that segwit provides the possibility for things like payment channels etc. But why is it being touted as a scaling solution for BITCOIN, knowing that segnet and Bitcoin are two different things. I think the topic of this thread is about The BITCOIN blocksize debate unless i misread the title. . .