Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!
Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.
Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as
valid. i.e. a hard fork.....
By saying valid outputs and valid block, you refer to original rules run by original nodes. Segwit already demonstrated that original nodes have no idea about the existence of witness data, they think the signature data is missing thus the transaction is "anyonecanspend", while in reality all the signature data is in another witness block that is invisible to original nodes
For the second time, you're confusing
transaction type (standard vs. non-standard) with
validity. It's starting to become clear that you have no interest in honest discussion. Non-existent outputs do not all of a sudden become "anyonecanspend"
transactions.
Similarly, by setting new rules in a new implementation and make it invisible to old nodes, you will have new outputs in new transaction packed in new blocks that old nodes can not see.
If nodes can't see the blocks, they have been forked off. The issue with non-updated nodes and Segwit is block validation, not transaction validation (i.e. blocks require that valid signatures conform to all transactions, but transactions themselves do not).
If you are suggesting that old nodes can't see
the transactions, you are dead wrong. In order to validate the transactions, they need to be able to see the inputs/outputs, otherwise there is no "transaction" to validate. Doesn't matter if the "transaction" is standard or non-standard. So you are actually suggesting something more along the lines of "nodes that do not validate anything"--not "old nodes."
They still think every block is normal, but they can't discover there is another block attached to each block and the relationship is described in coinbase transaction of each original block
That certainly does not mean that old nodes will validate the transactions within those blocks. They will reject them for containing invalid outputs.
In one word: In new implementation, there are two linked blocks every 10 minutes, but the old nodes see only the original block
This parasitic behavior originally come from mastercoin. They tried to encode message into bitcoin transactions but later found out it is too expensive to send information that way. But segwit soft fork opened a whole new world of parasitic design practice, thus anyone who understand how it works call it a hack
On the contrary, people like you who "call it a hack" prove time and time again to the community that they don't understand the first thing about how bitcoin works.
