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.
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. . .
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. . .