First of all, not true, there was a buffer overflow and a DB migration that caused a hard fork.
Second of all, this is THE thing that proves Bitcoin is not controlled by miners or developers, but the users, the people behind the Bitcoin economy. This is THE evidence one can point to in order to prove to someone that Bitcoin is a social construct.
So it wasn't compromised, it rather proved itself in the face of adversity from people trying to compromise it.
Problem -> Solution
Segwit wallets NEED the miners to process the signature side chains to function.
Any can spend Bitcoin + signature.
Solution: Pay the miners, reject non upgraded blocks
Miners are paid security, not network owners.
Any can spend is only applicable for nodes that don't use the segwit code, but then we've correctly identified the "problem" and the ultimate decision makers. Users. Users who run nodes.
Can miners control any can spend coins?
Depends on what node you're running. If they tried, they'd hard fork off for sure, but a non segwit node would allow it. A segwit node would not. Most people run segwit nodes. Segwit nodes are consensus. In particular, segwit nodes are social consensus.
So, segwit is Bitcoin. That's how social constructs work.
Yes, but if you own Bitcoin in a 1 address you don't care either way.
And social consensus would be tested and i guess we would see which fork ends up being Bitcoin.
But if over 50% of miners supported legacy Bitcoin that would make it interesting.
Most nodes are segwit, but more coins are held in a 1 address.
The 1 addresses have to pay the miners to keep pace and maintain a higher hash rate, typically via transaction fees. We've gone through this before though. That chain ended up becoming a shitcoin.
