Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian. Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.
So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.
Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit.
The luddites destroyed looms because they thought they would get them killed.
Looms.
Bitcoin is a new step in money, orders of magnitude more disruptive than weaving machines. It's not paranoia, it's just basic historical knowledge. The amount of resources needed to carry out large scale attacks on the network of the type we have been talking about recently seems like a lot of money to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there with enough money and inventive to do so. And a serious attempt will not be telegraphed in advance, it will just strike out of the blue. Given that the cost of insuring against such an event is... fifteen cents on the transfer... there simply is no good argument against doing so.