What do you guys think of this argument?
The premise is that a 51% attack is more dangerous with segwit than without it. That’s probably true. Stating that this will cause cartels is a stretch imo. The fundamental concept of bitcoin is that the majority of the hash wants to see the network succeed. If this law is broken, lots of scary stuff can happen. In Peercoin, this would be replaced by a PoS 51% attack, but most of the consequences are similar.
Yes, SegWit is a terrible hack poisoning the code with technical debt.
More fundamental than that is all miners do what is in their financial interest whether they are the majority or not. Your assumption is that it will always be in the financial interest of the majority to see the network succeed. Is this true even in the circumstances described in the article?
That’s the basic game theory backing most of crypto.
If the ‘cartel’ (i.e. collusion of miners) does not have majority, it cannot attack segwit outputs. Individuals are not a danger, only if they cooperate with each other to attack others is it an issue.
Right, but my question is under what circumstances would it become more profitable for miners to collude and attack SegWit outputs
Collusion is a complex beast. You could ask a similar question in any democracy, at what point does it become worth while to undermine the system. The reason you cannot break it down to numbers is that collusion is inherently a social process, and likely an illegal one at that. This attack is on the same level as double spending, and you will never see anyone advertising “come collude with me so we can double spend the bitcoin network” because they would be doing something illegal. So without the ability to broadcast intentions, what are the chances that strangers trust each other and collude to do something illegal? This is an impossible question to answer theoretically and has everything to do with the risk tolerance and desire of the participants to be dishonest and break the system.
@sandakersmann nothing in that article addresses this concern. 75% of that article is explaining the situation, then for the list of 6 concerns at the end, 1 and 4 are specific to bitcoin and the discount they chose, and 2,3,5, and 6 are about implementation. None of it addresses the OP concern.
Just pointing out that there are many more concerns regarding SegWit.