The argument presented defends the Lightning network and SuperScalar technologies against the notion of being entirely defective by comparing them to custodial Bitcoin wallets. These wallets are criticized for their reliance on the custodians' promises without any guaranteed mechanism for resolving discrepancies with the onchain state. The inherent risk in custodial wallets is highlighted—should the custodian become uncooperative, users could potentially lose access to their funds with no recourse.

The text advocates for the perspective that while no system is perfect, incremental improvements are valuable. It argues that technologies like Lightning, which attempt to synchronize offchain and onchain states despite not guaranteeing success, represent a step forward compared to the more flawed custodial approaches. This standpoint suggests embracing pragmatism in technological development, especially in scenarios where the choices available are between imperfect options. The underlying message is a call to focus criticism and improvement efforts on areas where they can have the most impact, rather than holding out for flawless solutions that may not be feasible.

In summary, the conversation revolves around the comparison between different methods of handling Bitcoin's offchain state, advocating for the recognition of partial improvements as progress. It challenges the dismissal of technologies that don't offer perfect solutions, emphasizing the importance of gradual advancements over the insistence on ideal but currently unattainable standards.