I find it really, really frustrating that you have a room full of otherwise hyperintelligent people, who were told in very clear terms by the Chinese miners what those miners want about a year ago (a hardfork increasing the max blocksize limit for the present type of transactions to at least 2 megabytes), and today, you have the same people asking in frustration why Chinese miners are not adopting segwit when those miners said in bright blinking cleartext a year ago what it is they want, and it is not segwit.
Do you think we must be controlled by Chinese miners? I would prefer decentralization
....
pools dont have power because they need node acceptance.
....
I always wonder about this. Running some xxx nodes should be a fraction of costs for pools. If so it should still be easier for pools to achieve majority for some change.
Further I guess pools might fear LN cause here they only get a fraction of the fees.
Could they start blocking those LN-tx ?
yep
nothing stops a pool from just not adding a tx.
like they are not forced to add a tx already. (empty blocks)
instead of being biased about 'zero fee' or bloated tx. they can be biased about multisigs. or sigs with CLTV or CSV included.
funny thing is though. nodes can also be biased. by not relaying such tx's. nodes already wont relay a tx if it doesnt have enough priority or is spending less than a certain amount of satoshis.
this is why core already changed the topology of the network via 'fibre' to counter the node risk of people not relaying tx's to a pool.