If there was an attack to reverse Segwit, the network will hard fork and the chain will split into two. The
mainCore chain will behave like nothing has happened while the
forked real Bitcoin chain will reverse Segwit.
I made a slight correction to your summary. Core will actually fork off from the
original Satoshi version 0.5.4 protocol at that juncture. As a matter of correct definitions and semantics, the Satoshi protocol cannot fork off from itself. It was first, so all hard forks are the later thing forking off from the original thing.
Otherwise the quoted is now correct. And that is what I have been explaining.
Haha, I respect your opinion, and I believe you also respect mine. Plus all I can say to that is "OK" and leave it.
But you forgot a very important point I made several times already and you continue to forget. That is those who hodl legacy addresses that begin with
1 will receive both real Bitcoin tokens and Core tokens. Whereas those who hodl in addresses that begin with
3 will receive only Core tokens. Even if you support Core, you would want the
real Bitcoin tokens so you could sell them and contribute to fighting against it and use the proceeds to buy Core tokens. But to do that, you must forsake SegWit in the interim time.
This proves that SegWit has no Schelling point.That is reminding of "Pascal's Wager". I believe it applies to that as well. It might be advisable to transfer cold storage coins to a legacy address but continue to use Segwit for active hot wallets. But that's where it ends because it does not automatically mean the non-Segwit chain will be followed by the economic majority and most the the miners. There are 80% of Segwit compatible nodes in total that are enforcing the rules, remember that.
Ok.
@anunymint, @Wind_FURY you guys better take care of your anti-segwit fork issue in a dedicated topic, imo.
Sorry. This will be the last one before I make a new thread.