Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit.
It is a well-known stupidity of people claiming this.
Well, you can pretend that an 'anyone can spend' transaction is something other than an 'anyone can spend' transaction. But of course that would be tautologically impossible.
Jbreher:
You and some of the big blocker nutjobs seem to have tendencies to cry wolf so much that if there did happen to be a real issue or a real problem, then it is possible that people might not believe you because they have been exposed to too many exaggerations, made up facts and made up conclusions, right?
Wrong.
Sometimes, I state facts, and sometimes, I render opinions. I try not to exaggerate, I don't make up facts, and I try to keep my conclusions rational. When challenged, I produce rationale for my statements. Sometimes, I even get things wrong, but I always try to be truthful.
You, OTOH, tend to repeat dogma as if it were settled truth, and avoid providing any basis for your utterances.
Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.
Of course, one
can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.