Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?
My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).
So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit?
How could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?
There is no known obvious flaw in SegWit, even implemented as soft fork with Luke's script hack (as Blockstream is doing). It does fix those malleability problems. The other alleged benefits are small: it saves a little bandwidth for simple clients (only for them; not for full nodes) and may give a little more block space (depending on how many clients adopt the new format).
SegWit is just a disgusting hack. The same benefits could (should) have been implemented in a cleaner way, with a hard fork, without having to change the format of blocks.
I have seen complaints from wallet developers about the extent of changes that it will require to their code. Others have complained about the huge risk of having such a pervasive change (more than 500 lines of code, last I read) made to the core of the protocol, with relatively little critical review, and under such pressure. (Testing can reveal accidental flaws; but one will not know about security flaws until it is implemented, and malicious hackers try to break it.)
Others are unhappy that Blockstream is putting so much effort into deploying SegWit, instead of other things like fast block propagation. The reason for the hurry is that SegWit is needed for the LN (or some other thing that Blockstream is planning and did not tell).
Hard forks are
not more dangerous than soft-forks. One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users.
Last July there was a 6-block reorganization of the blockchain, the third largest in bitcoin's history. It was caused by a blocthed
soft fork.
Besides, there will be some hard fork in the future, for other reasons (such as increasing the min block size). The alternative malleability fix (that does not require the split-block format) could be deployed in the same hard fork.
SegWit makes bitcoin more complicated: the split blocks and transactions, Luke's script hack, the fee formulas, etc.
Increasing the complexity of the protocol makes it harder to explain and master (many docs will have to be edited) and harder to maintain. Increased complexity means that fewer people will qualify to maintain the code, and to write applications that depend on the format.
[/quote]