It 'fixes' the incentives only in cases where nodes throw away data needed for any future validations of the transactions. Whether or not this 'pruning' is a good idea is a matter of reasonable debate.
Incorrect. Regardless of if you prune the data or not, you don't need to access it, so it doesn't impact your working set size.
How, pray tell, does one validate a transaction, if one does not possess the signature data?
Turning fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes is a rather funny definition of 'backwards compatible'.
they don't validate the new segwit things
Exactly. The SegWit Omnibus Changeset renders them non-fully-validating. In my view, that does not comport with 'backwards compatible'.
UTXO set size is some function of (# users) * (# of addresses holding value per user). As far as privacy is concerned, best practice dictates distributing your value across several addresses. Are we to follow The SegWit Omnibus Changeset with a recommendation for each user to hold all their Bitcoin on a single address? Privacy be damned?
Segwit provides absolutely no pressure to use fewer addresses for your managing your own coins.
I did not say that The SegWit Omnibush Changeset creates new pressure to use fewer addresses. I merely point out that any benefit to UTXO set size of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is marginal at best.
Introduction of a new fixed centrally-planned variable?
"1" is also a variable, there is no such thing as a neutral option there.
Yes, '1' is a variable. However, there is indeed a neutral option. And it is '1'. Because what is being paid for is space on the chain, in the form of bytes contained in a transaction.
Preferential incentive for offchain transactions over onchain transactions? Myopic much?
Nothing about segwit is "preferential for offchain"-- if anything it's slightly the opposite.
I have yet to see a cogent argument which supports your case. Or does your position not include an implication that Lightning is the step-function scalability jump that is enabled by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset? Regardless, the challenge is to your assertion that "As to why Bitmain would complain about it, I am aware of no sensible reason."