Whats wrong with conspiracy? Some things should absolutely be questioned until the truth is in a majority consensus.
I suppose.
Never say never, but does anyone really believe that segwit is going to get reversed due to lack of support?
I doubt it.
In the meantime, a variety of FUDsters will continue to denigrate segwit, and seem to cause even smart peeps to fail/refuse to use segwit features (and addresses) which will continue to carry out the intended behaviors preferred by the FUDsters - largely what seems to be a delay the inevitable, which is greater and greater segwit adoption.
Perhaps instead of having high levels (such as greater than 2/3) of segwit adoption in 2 years, it will take more than 4 or 5 years? If they are successful in the FUD spreading, then I suppose it could take a while to get to majority and even convincingly majority status with segwit adoption, perhaps?
I've been thinking about that anunymint guys idea. Have we seen it play out before, on the etherium blockchain?
Is bitcoin close enough to ethereum to conclude that something that happened on ethreum (two years ago) would be reasonably feasible on bitcoin today? or in the future?
He reckons that miners at some point will mine segwit coins to themselves as a 'donation' because (AnyoneCanSpend) in the (original bitcoin) protocol allows it to happen. This will trigger a fork in which the core supported chain would roll back to reverse that theft by miners.
Would that be a bit like the the Etherium DAO hacker helping himself to funds via the bug ridden piece of shit that it was?
You can argue that the problems with the ethereum contract language a couple of years ago is at a sufficiently high similarity to segwit language, but certainly, I don't understand that segwit language is anywhere near as sloppily written as DAO language - or even as powerful as the weakness that was in the DAO language.
In the etherium case, claim to immutability was lost because the transactions were rolled back, the chain forked and the immutable etherium classic was born.
I recall Ethereum claiming to be pro-hardfork well before the DAO attack, and they were lording over their "hard fork friendly" disposition and practice prior to the DAO hardfork that went a bit worse for them with the birth of ethereum classic.
In the ether case the market didn't care about immutability and the value stayed with Etherium leaving classic as an alt. Would the same follow for bitcoin core ?
Game theory, I suppose to see if a hardfork would occur in bitcoin or not because of such a supposed flaw? Sounds more like speculative FUD spreading to me than a real possibility, but what do I know?
edit 1: In this scenario (if I understood it correctly) it will be quite hard for the core chain to continue to claim being the one true bitcoin I would have thought. But then again I thought that about etherium too at the time.
You are assuming that there is going to be a bitcoin hardfork under such circumstances.. don't we have to get there first, before assuming the rest?
edit 2: I'm not trolling just trying to think through the possibilities. I also don't think anunymint is trying to troll either. Nearly all the replies I read to his posts didn't directly relate to what he was trying to say.
If anunymint is so smart and so misunderstood, then why can't he be smart enough to figure out a better way to present his ideas, rather than attempting to lord over his supposed technological expertise and calling everyone other than himself dumb? Furthermore, if he was so smart, then why doesn't he work with core to attempt to help solve the problem... Oh no? Core folks are so dumb that they disregard the smartness of anunymint, who is the smartest person in the room.
Poll
