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?
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? 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.
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 ?
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.
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.
The hardfork would involve more than restoring tokens stolen via a smart contract residing on one address. It would involve restoring 1000s of UTXO to 1000s of addresses. Plus, if such a vulnerability with Segwit was fully demonstrated, Core would have to work on a patch so that it won't keep happening. That might take many months if not years to accomplish.