I wrote two longish posts upthread with many rebuttals and explanations:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14789764#msg14789764
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg14793818#msg14793818

The community's posts that have followed are indicative that most people are naive and easily duped. It boggles my mind how readers have misconstrued the situation.

Let me try again to unravel all your egregious misunderstandings.

• Geographical Location Is Irrelevant: please stop making the inane disingenuous strawman alleging this thread is concerned about where the concentration of hashing power is located. The problem is that the economies-of-scale of profitable proof-of-work forces the concentration the mining control into a few ASIC mining farms. I explained why this is technically and economically inexorable and unavoidable in my prior two posts, which are linked for you above. The only relevance of China, is that China has the right Communist corruption to facilitate building these ASIC mining farms with much lower cost, because the electricity is likely subsidized at near 0 cost to the miner by the State. For example, the $billions spent by the taxpayers to construct the environmental disaster Three Gorges Dam (actually in China the tax is the low interest rate paid on savings accounts offered by State controlled banking which the LGUs then borrow at near 0%). The ostensible fact that China is a totalitarian/fascist command economy is relevant in the sense that it means the owners of the mining farms are necessarily beholden to the Communist Party leaders and their commands.
• Bitcoin Has Already Been 51% Attacked: to argue that the oligarchy of miners and mining pools in China won't abuse their control is disingenuous because they already have! They blocked Bitcoin Classic and XT and appear to be deciding for the us that SegWit is the protocol hard fork that will be forced on all of us. And there is not a damn thing any of us can or will do about it. Note the Great Firewall (GFW) of China is not a valid argument to be against larger blocks, because the pool server could be located outside and only the hash of the block needs to be sent across the GFW. So please stop the inane argument that they won't 51% attack BitCON when they have already done so. Ostensibly the reason they are supporting SegWit is because what the miners want is the ability to constrict the block size so that they can maximize transaction fees at the maximum level the market will bear, i.e. maximize the equation: (fees per transaction) × (transaction rate). They obviously won't allow transaction fees to go so high that no one uses BitCON any more, i.e. they will allow block size to increase in a constricted controlled increase in order to maximize the aforementioned equation, but they also will make sure they extract more than the $1million a day they are extracting from our pockets now. Through their bankster friends system, I posit they effectively bought off Blockstream by indirectly providing Blockstream's $70 million in vulture capital funding, in order to insure the necessary control over BitCON's protocol. It's a "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" network often referred to colloquially as The Bilderberg Group. We tinfoil hats complain about how the government steals from us with fiat inflation, yet then we don't complain when the oligarchy of miners are doing the same thing! We are so gullible and stoopid, it is not surprising that the-powers-that-be think we are useless eaters and cattle fodder.
• Segregrated Witness Includes A Diabolical Trojan Horse: the technology for scaling in SegWit is dubious, but that is not the major issue of concern with it. Instead of issuing SegWit has a normal hard fork which miners can vote on by which protocol they mine, Blockstream (Bitcoin core devs) is changing the Bitcoin protocol in such a way that in the future they can introduced versioned "soft fork" changes to the protocol. This is actually very diabolical if you think carefully about it. What this means is that there can exist transactions on the block chain which can only be handled by a miner who supports the version of the protocol which that transaction was signed to. So while they label this as a "soft fork", meaning that it is optional for miners, in reality it is a very insidious way of forcing a hard fork on all miners because little-by-little new transactions are written to the new version of the protocol and then miners who don't switch to the new version can't process the newer transactions. So in effect this puts Blockstream in control of the protocol of Bitcoin and we the users basically lose our power to rally a political decision about a hard fork. Why? Because insidious changes are very difficult for people to rally a group to defend against. This is a very clever paradigm of divide-and-conquer that was employed by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. They always want to destroy you insidiously while you are not aware. And I believe my criticism is the underlying real reason that Gregory Maxwell is nuking my posts and fighting me. Apparently theymos is also corrupt, or has been hoodwinked by the Gman.
• Decentralization Is The Only Difference From Fiat: those who argue that decentralization is not that important, are in effect arguing that fiat is acceptable. Those who argue that "Satoshi" intended Bitcoin to centralize over time are probably correct. "Satoshi" may have even intentionally put a back door in BitCON. I also argue that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is the House of Morgan's creation, he is not one person but rather a diabolical group, and BitCON was designed to con those tinfoil hat geeks who want "a better gold". Did you not read the Bitcoin white paper carefully where it seems to attack the existing system of financial institutions for internet transactions in the first page and then in distribution section it pitches BitCON as a better gold. The white paper wasn't an academic only paper, but also a very well targeted marketing advertisement. That you all idolize Satoshi as giving us some great technological gift is all the more hilarious, because obviously "Satoshi" did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem, and he gave us a profitable proof-of-work design which MUST centralize. However there is another wrinkle to this. The design Satoshi gave us, leads TPTB_need_war to a new design which is UNprofitable proof-of-work, and that design may not centralize (so easily). So it is possible that while I believe "Satoshi Nakamoto" was a secret group formed by the-powers-that-be to siphon $1 million a day from the tinfoil hat crowd, it is possible that one of those intelligent men working in that group actually expected that maybe someone would be resourceful enough to figure out how to fix the design. So in that way, maybe the good spirit of human kind is still in play.
  
  AnonyMint warned you all about this when he first joined this forum in March 2013. The-powers-that-be have a golden rule by which they abide. They always warn you of their plans, and this is so you sheep have your free will. They know damn well that you sheep are too asleep and disorganized to do anything to stop them.
• Bitcoin Can't Be Fixed: those who are deluded into thinking that Bitcoin could somehow morph and be fixed from its current design and circumstance, are dumber than horse shit. Do I really need to explain.   Fixing Bitcoin with all the ingrained inertia and vested interests is equivalent to those who argue that the governments can be fixed and that world won't collapse into a horrific global debt implosion Minsky Moment roughly 2018. These are the same type of people who don't put plywood on their windows when a hurricane is approaching and then blame for FEMA for not rescuing them.