I'll give it a shot.
Thank you.
Mr. Mint and that other one seem like flat out nutters to me though. I'd like to hear the thoughts of others but of course it's seemingly impossible to get impartial thoughts on this.
I find the idea of the super rich raping Segwit and relaxing in Bitcoin Original watching it burn laughable myself. Everyone and everything would be swatted in a tsunami of shit.
It does look like extra risk that certainly most could do without taking, but the incentive not to raze everything to the ground is still as strong as ever. If it's that gaping I'm surprised there's that much faith in the incentives alone though.
Good point, gentlemand.
Sure, there can be all kinds of hypothesizing that miners will do this or that, but in the end, why the fuck would they want to kill the golden goose, when the end plot is not going to cause the whole bitcoin network to move over to some kind of new fork that they supposedly branch into and to give their supposed new fork value.
There were similar premises previously, around the time of the bcash fork, regarding the supposed power for miners to do whatever the fuck they wanted including removing their hash power from bitcoin because they were ultimately the boss of security, yet we found that when push came to shove, value incentives did not move so easily or shift over to something that was perceived to be a deviation from consensus.. so the fantasy of miners throwing around power and threatening the movement of value (or stealing value) ended up not being as true in practice as it was in theory.