Quote from: thejaytiesto on August 13, 2017, 03:21:51 PM

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

This problem has been pointed out to core devs almost since SegWit was A Thing. They acknowledge that it is technically possible, but they ridicule any notion that it is a practical risk. I believe they are gravely mistaken. The risk is unacceptable. While perhaps small initially, the risk grows unboundedly with the cumulative UTXO ever used in segwit transactions.