Ok, then prove to me that it can’t be abused. 

You can’t prove a negative so to prove it can’t be abused, you must first list all classes of ways it can be used and then prove those can’t be abused. 

Since you can’t list all the classes of ways it can be used, you can’t prove it can’t be abused. 

So therefore your statement that you know the limits of it and that it’s safe is not true. 

You don’t know the limits of it. If you did, you could tell me. Right?

Timelocks and multisig have classes of uses beyond lightning so you’re right, it would have been silly to reject them because we didn’t know of the potential of lightning. We already knew other ways they could be used. For example, shared custody. 

It’s not just a hashlock, is it? If it were just a hashlock we could use pay-to-script-hash (P2SH). 

Think about it more. You have everything backwards. In product design, we don’t build technology first and then hunt for a problem to solve. We first identify a human centered problem to solve and then design technology to make people’s lives better. 

Imagine that you are a systems designer for a nuclear reactor. Would you agree to release a public API that could do a bunch of stuff that people will figure out later? No, you wouldn’t. Someone might accidentally melt down the core. Instead, you would make the most limited changes that you knew would be safe.

When I look at the bitcoin core protocol. I see something more important than a nuclear reactor. The core devs are one of the most centralized and dangerous systems in the bitcoin ecosystem. Unlike individual govts, they actually do have the power to destroy the entire network. 

Let’s not “melt down” bitcoin’s core.  Future generations are counting on us.