But achow made a practical reply.
If segwit activates, any attempt to steal anyone's Bitcoin by stealing segwit outputs will be considered invalid and any blocks that contain said transactions will be invalid and thus will be a hard fork. With a hard fork, anything goes. Anyone can make a hard fork and confiscate anyone's coins on that fork, it is, after all, a change in consensus rules where you can make the consensus rules whatever you want. "The Real Bitcoin" is no different. In fact several forks have been made from Bitcoin which no one really cares about, and "The Real Bitcoin" will just be another one of those. If there is no economic activity and no users actually use a coin, it is worthless and no one will care about it. Currently ALL miners are signaling for segwit per the BIP 91 rules. No miners are using "The Real Bitcoin" and no major businesses, exchanges, or users are using it. In fact, the vast majority of users (including businesses and exchanges) and miners are supporting segwit.
So sure, you could hard fork and steal coins spent in Segwit transactions, but no one would care because it would be a hard fork and it would just become another altcoin that no one ever thinks about.
Also, you could just steal all P2SH coins now. P2SH was released after "The Real Bitcoin" made their fork. And it would get you more coins much sooner. But no one would care if you did.
Miners are also incentivized to not hard fork and steal coins. Besides the fact that stealing coins means that they will be damaging the value of the chain they forked from, miners are also then taking the risk that the fork that they switched to will be completely worthless. It is far more profitable to continue to mine the chain which the majority of the community backs and will be using than it is to mine some fork which will likely be worthless with no users on that fork. There will be more transactions on that chain and more value with it as people are actually using it. Furthermore, any miner who did choose steal anyone's coins would come under significant criticism from everyone in the community and that would be terrible for their reputation.
If talking about "game theory" would it not be against the self interest of the miners to "steal" Segwit outputs if they can do it?
I believe achow101 is the mod here (presumably the same individual as you quoted). He has been very cordial and civil in his discussions which I appreciate and respect.
Yet he was incorrect to conclude that Satoshis protocol is a hardfork from itself. He may have been convinced otherwise since he made that reply? Although apparently he is a Core contributor, so I dont know if can change his opinion or if he can comment on it. I am not trying to pressure him. He presumably has to walk a tightrope because he is also a (n apparently upstanding and fair) mod here.
Core soft forked. If Satoshi miners choose to take P2SH donations because they are ANYONECANSPEND in the Satoshi protocol, then if Core miners reject Satoshis protocol, then Core is the protocol that has forked off.
I had already explained this point.I already read it. What would happen is a chain split. In the TRB chain all coins stored in a Segwit address can be stolen and all Lightning channels can be wiped out. In the main Bitcoin chain everything will be the same as if nothing has happened.
We already know what your answer is on "But which chain would be followed by the economic majority and the miners?" I respect your opinion and I will leave it there. But I am confident the Bitcoin Core protocol will be followed by the economic majority and by most of the miners.