i look at it this way: i am a long time holder. i have an amount of btc i wish to protect. there is a very small, but non zero, chance i could lose btc stored in a segwit address. and all i have to do to mitigate that risk is store my long term btc in a legacy address. well thats a no brainer to me. after all my long term coins rarely move and segwit has no real advantage for long term holders.
i do have segwit coins, those are the ones i move back and forth to exchanges, use to buy stuff etc, IOW the day to day coins. the bulk of my coins are legacy. i get the best of both worlds: cheap fees on the daily driver segwit coins, better security for the legacy hodl coins. so whats the problem?
EDIT: here is an interesting read.. its what happened to a bunch of segwit coins on a chain that does not support segwit coins. happened on the bcash side but does illustrate what can happen (well, kinda, i think. maybe its not).
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7eixcu/recovering_bch_sent_to_segwit_addresses/EDIT 2: i don not do bcash, i sold that crap off.
There seems to be nothing wrong with what you are doing, but there still could be a bit of an issue to not support segwit for long term storage, merely based on very low odds of an attack (as you mentioned). I already mentioned to others that trolls seem to be striving to get you to NOT use segwit.. and you might play into their hands, perhaps?
Regarding sending bcash to a bitcoin segwit address.
1) Bcash does not use segwit and your link seems to describe some possible problems with bcash, not bitcoin, 2) bcash forked before segwit got implemented and activated into bitcoin 3) bcash continued to use the same addresses for preforked coins.. and then used addresses that look like bitcoin legacy addresses (which could cause confusion), but I don't see what the bcash problem is because they should not be able to use segwit addresses (since they did not implement segwit)... but yeah, there could be an issue with bcash getting sent to any bitcoin address, whether legacy address or a segwit address.
im not sure what you mean (point 0?). what disadvantage do i have by storing btc in a legacy address?
Ultimately, you can do whatever you want. I am largely suggesting that if you support a system, then you should use it to make it stronger rather than getting scared away by fear mongers.. and largely a lot of speculative disinformation that is not likely to play out in real life scenarios. Yes, I recognize that you seemed to have identified a compromise that you believe to be acceptable (and that is surely for yourself to decide what you feel comfortable with), but maybe you should question the extent to which you might be overly cautious and not even attempting to use the segwit aspect of addresses for storage.
Largely you may be correct that there is not much of a difference... there also may be a certain non-necessity to move coins from legacy addresses to segwit addresses if they are already sitting in those addresses.
i will pay a higher fee when i move them at some point and i accept that. but im no worried about it; i tend to move fairly largish amounts (fairly largish to me anyway) at a time and generally im not in a hurry so usually i chose the smallest fee and dont care if it takes days to confirm. its a small percentage compared to the amount i move. for fast transactions i use segwit coins ive set aside for daily driver type stuff.
Yes. I am not really talking about fees and transaction times for long term storage. I do think that there are modern solutions to privacy that are being worked on with segwit. I am not sure if there would be as much development on legacy systems... but I am not really sure. So for example, I think that it can be helpful to divide your coins into different wallets, instead of keeping them in one wallet, and sometimes wallets will engage in some kind of unclear method of combining addresses within the wallet that you may have been trying to keep private, but then when you send, the wallet combines the addresses, so the output shows both addresses connected to you. In that regard, there may be newer wallets (such a segwit wallets) that are trying to deal with this issue and give more power to users to control.
so how is that playing into anyones hand?
I should not have to explain this concept. If segwit fear spreaders are trying to cause folks not to use segwit or to adopt it, then they achieve part of their objective when users act on such fears and fail/refuse to use segwit. It is largely a systemic issue rather than an individual issue.
as for point 1, as i mentioned it may not apply except for illustrating how the underlying segwit "spend to anyone" can be exploited. which is admittedly a very small risk, but a risk nonetheless. risk is risk. if it cost basically nothing to eliminate it, why would i not do so?
i guess it boils down to why i would go out of my way to use segwit addys for long term hodl?
We remain early adopters and kinds of guinea pigs. We are going out of your way to use bitcoin, and to learn about bitcoin. The more we learn, the better we understand it.... Of course, there is a balance and only so many hours in the day to learn about new systems. When I first got into bitcoin, I attempted to learn about just a couple of aspects, and through the years, I have added more and more kinds of activities and for me, my participation in the bitcoin ecosystem has continued to be an ongoing learning process.. but I admit that I can only do so much at any one time. I am currently considering adding another wallet for myself, and so I understand that it can take a while to learn and to add more bitcoin tools to my bitcoin toolbox.
