You don't seem to get it. What is most important for me is consensus and how Bitcoin is developed. 75% is not consensus.
You're right - there is something in your statements that I don't quite get. If 75% is not consensus, then neither is 95%. So... what's your point?
I don't really care about SegWit since it's a soft fork and not something forced upon me.
Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.
I don't believe SegWit will centralize the network.
I am however certain that forever growing blocks will centralize the network.
Yet The SegWit Omnibus Changeset grows blocks.
Just to be clear, your argument is that increasing maxblocksize centralizes the network of non-mining, fully-validating nodes, by reducing the absolute number of such nodes, due to increased per-node resource demand?
What if the number of bitcoin users increases by by some factor due to new entrants, and a few of them fire up nodes, such that absolute node count rises while percentage drops? Is that an increase or decrease of decentralization in your definition?
And your answer didn't change my mind about that.
Cool. I can agree to disagree. I'm just trying to cut to the core of the facts in dispute, and peel back the falsehoods heaped atop them.
SegWit isn't perfect but at least it's opt in. It's not forced on anyone.
Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.
Care to explain this in detail?
Sure. In one sentence. I thought it was crystal clear already. So here goes - to wit:
Upon activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, previously fully-validating nodes are rendered non-validating nodes, as they are incapable of validating SegWit transactions.