yes.
if segwit is doomed like anunymint is praising, people would lose trust in bitcoin and blockchain as a whole. that's why there is no advantage in storing coins on legacy addresses.
Praising? Who says he is happy about it?
Something that might be interesting to consider is why some of you seem to be so invested in the idea of segwit being the ultimate good that you call anyone who question it, even on a technical security front, names. What's up with that?
Because many BTC HODLers want to believe that the Bitcoin core team is headed in the right direction. They want to believe that BTC, in it's current state, is antifragile.
Yes, but are they right?
Want is a childish way to think. Which would be fine if it didn't matter, you do you etc. But emotions do not dictate physical reality. It is counterproductive.
What the fuck you talking about Ibian? BTC is decentralized. You seem to be framing "core" as if it is some kind of centralized team that is making decisions about the direction of bitcoin. That is NOT the case. You should understand a bit more about bitcoin, by now. The direction of bitcoin becomes established by consensus.. and segwit was agreed to, tested, and then activated and implemented through consensus.
Each of us can decide the extent to which we want to invest into decentralized projects or to hedge our bets with various projects that are likely to be more centralized.. In other words, on the spectrum of centralization, there are no other projects that are as decentralized as bitcoin... If you have an example of one, then name it and describe how it is more decentralized than bitcoin.