I disagree with your stance on BCH/Bitcoin Satoshi/Bitcoin Segwit.
Although what you espouse as being a fatal issue with Segwit may or may not be true (I do not know enough about the technical to comment on that, as I haven't put in the time to research). I am not arguing this point... let's assume that it is true.
I think that you are underestimating the power of "Social Consensus". The market, press, and users have all already determined that Bitcoin Segwit is Bitxoin, and there can only be one Bitcoin. All others (Bitcoin Satoshi, Bitcoin Cash, etc.) are alternative cryptocurrencies, as decided by Social Consensus.
After that Social Consensus has been reached, there is no turning back (or reverting back) to Bitcoin Satoshi or Bitcoin Cash. This remains true even if the fatal Segwit flaws rear their ugly head on the real Bitcoin (aka. Bitcoin Segwit... as determined by Social Consensus).
Old Bitcoin forks can not reestablish themselves as the real Bitcoin fork once they have established themselves as being alternative cryptocurrencies (due to Social Consensus) because of the economic realities of such. This is the source of my dissent with your stance... the economic realities of what would happen if the real Bitcoin (Bitcoin Segwit) operates for months to years, then it is all the sudden determined that... suprise, Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Satoshi is actually the real Bitcoin. The market, press, users, and miners (which, as a whole, constitute as Social Consensus) will never allow such a coupe because of the huge economic losses they will suffer from it should it occur.
If theft of coins due to fatal flaws in Segwit does occur, then I think a new fork will become the new real Bitcoin... not Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin Satoshi. Similar to how Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split. Segwit will be fixed/removed from the codebase and the chain rolled back to before the attacks, and then due to Social Consensus Bitcoin (Segwit then minus Segwit) will become the real Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Segwit will become an alternative cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi will remain alternative cryptocurrencies.
I recently wrote about Social Consensus, and how it's power is underestimated by decentralized/autonomous protocol idealists. At the end of the day, Social Consensus trumps all other types of consensus (PoW/PoS/etc.)
https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-2-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-myOnce again, its possible Im Chicken Little. So every reader should decide for himself the threat level he/she perceives to be reality. Im not trying to sway anyone to do anything. Im just sharing my thoughts and discussing.
@CoinCube noted about this threat that if it came true, then users who inadvertently double-spent BTC could be sued by exchanges and others and funds clawed back making everybody in the lineage chain responsible for the double-spent funds. A huge mess! That is why he thinks miners will never do it. He thinks there would be outrage in the community. But the whales, most of which who presumably know about this risk, have I think prepared. Its the n00bs who are likely to be harmed and theyre not economically relevant anyway, their UAHF/community vote is not superior in the context of an economic majority. So being that I view myself as a defender of the honest underdog, I feel obligated to share this information.
I can't argue with the above. I agree that it would likely constitute as fraud or theft.