Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?
We can't say with 100% certainty that they are excluding SegWit transactions just by looking at the size of blocks. We can definitely conclude that blocks larger than 1mb in size have to have some SegWit usage included, but it's entirely feasible to have a block smaller than 1mb that still includes some SegWit transactions. Perhaps it's just a coincidence? I saw two antpool blocks yesterday over 1mb.
you can spot when a block contains absolutely no segwit UTXO's because the "stripped" size(b) and the size(b) are virtually equal give or take a few bytes difference for the block format/header stuff
that said. the blocks that are tagged as "antpool" but do include segwit show that not everything is run by one man (countering the "china own 51%" racism
you will also notice that some "antpool" blocks coin reward are different. theres half a dozen different coin reward addresses. each different address represents a different facility in a different location.
you will also notice that one of them "antpool" coin reward addresses is actually a bech32 address. which also counters the propaganda. as it shows that antpool isnt a single mindset of Wu but different facilities differnt countries and different managers with different judgements
(sorry to the core cabin of PR team, for busting the myth of Wu)
so i hope all you lot in this topic that just follow a certain narative have all got the message about that myth. as thats been circling for years as a drama finger pointing exercise by mainly your buddies for years
for instance.. even just above combining antpool & btc.com into some single mindset....(facepalm)
but i do laugh when a certain group treat over a billion people (china) as a single mindset.. now that is funny