For instance we have a solution for the transaction malleability issue - Flexible Transactions - which causes a tiny fraction as much technical debt while offering big benefits in future-proofing. Why bother with Segwit when we have a better solution?

But that's neither here nor there because Segwit doesn't even solve the actual problem that everyone wants fixed right now - block size. The small, one off, slow to deploy solution offered by Segwit isn't a scaling solution at all. It's likely that take-up of Segwit wallets will be fairly gradual which means it'll probably never even prevent the blocks being full. Even if it does we'll be back in the same hole in a few months time anyway because of the small one off change. What's needed is a solution which actually fixes the problem.

That solution is the lightning network, which the transaction malleability fix of the segwit patch fixes and makes possible.

Mike Hearn would disagree with you, and he knows a lot about how Bitcoin works.

https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-ha...

The same Mike Hearn that recently announced the failure of his R3CEV venture to deliver a blockchain solution for banking?

https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425

The same Mike Hearn that tried and failed to push through a fork of the bitcoin network called Bitcoin XT that allowed for a personally controlled black-list?

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist...

Yeah. That guy. He has an agenda, and it hasn't been aligned with bitcoin for quite some time.

The blacklist article is pure FUD, seemingly written with the sole intent of smearing Hearn.