you do realise that its not actually an anyonecanspend script. and as soon as someone without segwit tried to spend it in an anyonecanspend.. it wont get accepted by legit ethical pools...
Yes, I know. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant BEFORE segwit's deployment. Right now, you can create a transaction that has a segwit output. Right now that output is an anyonecanspend output.
Pools would not accept an attempt to spend a segwit output as anyonecanspend AFTER segwit's deployment.
blindly passing it on..
They do not blindly pass on segwit transactions because those are considered non-standard and thus rejected.
not because it actually is an anyonecanspend. otherwise thats another way of breaking bitcoin.. by old clients spending segwit transactions.(which u think is possible)
See above.
only a malicious miner can bend their rules and accept a malicious transaction into their block, to be treated as funky by everyone else blindly accepting it as funky. but if USERS tries to make a transaction and pushed it to a pool. unless the pool was malicious and wanted strangers to spend their previous tx, then it wouldnt get in a new block. so people cant spend the funky tx...
AFTER segwit's activation, such malicious transactions spending segwit outputs as anyonecanspend are invalid.
this is why i have used the word funky instead of anyonecanspend. because the anyonecanspend was for analogical reasons not technical
Anyonecanspend is technical, not analogical. An OLD node validates segwit outputs as anyonecanspend because under the old rules they are anyonecanspend.
my scenario is about the block creation by a malicious pool. not the user creating transactions (which pools would dump)
Miners won't mine an an invalid block.