Quote from: vroom on July 01, 2018, 01:07:37 PM

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on July 01, 2018, 12:51:19 PM

Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?

this is a conspiracy and can not be denied or confirmed that easy. infofront wrote a good summary:

Quote from: infofront on June 28, 2018, 06:30:37 PM

I'll give it a shot.

- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions. However, we assume that it will be in the best interest of the miners to not steal Segwit coins. If one of the miners were to take all the segwit coins, we assume most other miners wouldn't recognize the theft, and the thieved coins would be on a forked chain that would soon die.

The previous part is basically non-controversial. The rest is speculation and conjecture. Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen. Here is their reasoning, as I see it:

- Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
- Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.
- If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't), plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit. In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.
- Plan B seems unlikely, but:
- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, as segwit transactions are "anyone can spend". You don't need a private key, as mentioned earlier.
- Even though the majority of users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the non-segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers higher security.
- Mining is centralized, and even if it becomes more decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers, etc. miners will operate as a cartel. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards taper down to almost nothing. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these fees. Segwit cuts into these fees.

I'll give it a shot.

- Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
- This decreases the security of segwit transactions.

Anonymint and some others, such as Mircea Popescu, are of the opinion that it's almost an inevitability the segwit coins will be stolen.

Miners did not want the segwit soft fork. They went along with it just to prevent the UASF
Bcash was essentially "plan a" to keep most transactions on the main bitcoin layer, so they can protect their fees.

If bcash doesn't succeed (hint: it won't),

- As more and more Bitcoins pile into segwit addresses, there is an ever-increasing incentive for miners to steal these.
plan B is a future fork that will remove segwit.
In this case, miners will take all the segwit coins.

- Technically it wouldn't even be theft, who cares the original bitcoin will fork back making it redundant, keep your crap altcoins no-one will buy them after

- Even though the majority of ALTCOIN users would be pissed, the super wealthy would support the ~~non-~~segwit chain. To them, securing their wealth is the single most important thing, and the non-segwit chain offers the truth to their crimes.

ALTCOIN buyers will flood to the new SECURE and SAFE segwit fork or whatever code they want to centralize

- Mining is decentralized due to new ASIC manufacturers. At the end of the day, they all want to make as much money as possible.
- As we head toward the future, mining rewards always increase. Miners need to increasingly rely on transaction fees when they blow profits. It would be in the best interest of miners to maximize these profits. Segwit does cut into these fees.