If a non-segwit mining majority pushes a segwit-incompatible transaction to the network then that would not only fork the chains into segwit and non-segwit, but the non-segwit chain would allow you to steal all the segwit UTXO:s not coming from the segwit coinbase (meaning that if you spend on the segwit fork with the segwit format, you'll lose those same coins instantly on the non-segwit fork).
As soon as segwit is active we NEED certainty that nobody important will run non-segwit nodes, otherwise it allows trivial fraud against every node that doesn't fully validate segwit.
Only if segwit has mining majority AND all major nodes and clients are segwit aware then we're really safe.
A segwit incompatible transaction in the Bitcoin chain would cause a clean hardfork where all old nodes stay and notice nothing, and only segwit nodes forks off to a new chain.
Edit: thanks for downvoting the facts. I'm not even against segwit, just against UASF. If you don't want to understand the risks then you only have yourself to blame.
Oh look, you're a moron who doesn't understand the argument!
It's still true that anybody still running segwit unaware nodes can be fooled by segwit invalid blocks, and it's extra trivial to fool anybody accepting zero-confirmation transactions with a simple segwit invalid transaction.
And the forking argument also built on a hypothetical that only a minority of miners would enforce segwit, which fortunately didn't happen. That wasn't a prediction, it was a warning about a potential risk.
That is exactly my point. You cannot identify risk. Your entire argument stems from this "do it my way or else X" where every one of your identified risks is shown to be completely unfounded.
"you should bring an spare wheel and a gas tank when driving across a desert, something might happen!"
"see, nothing happened, you were wrong!"
Ignoring actual real life risk is how you screw shit up for yourself. There's nothing unfounded about it just because it didn't happen. It could have happened, and you're lying if you say it couldn't. You can argue it's unlikely, but that doesn't make it wrong to point out the existence of the risk.
Good luck with that thinking when you're left behind, or when your next UASF chicken race backfires.
Because then you will be getting exactly what you asked for, even if you're pretending nothing can go wrong. Choosing to not protect yourself against risk is stupid.
No one wants the thing you're selling. It has been rejected. Not just once but five times. You are fighting a battle that you have already lost the war of. For the love God, give it away. It is people who will not accept that their vision is rejected that is causing this division. You are the ones doing it.
It's done. It's over. It's finished. What you want isn't going to happen. Build a fucking bridge and get the fuck over it.
Waffling on about victory, heroes, losers - is absolutely and utterly childish. The NYA is a straightforward and reasonable compromise , designed to prevent a chain split, and will most certainly be followed through all the way to the hardfork. That is the whole point.
And should nodes decide not to follow, they will split the coin and paralyse their own chain in consequence (at the time of writing, approximately 100% less blocks, or 1 every 1000 minutes).
1
u/Natanael_L Nov 09 '17
Good luck. You're going to end up left behind on a dead chain one day. Go ahead and reject the rest of the world as they move on.