Segwit was passed by overwhelming consensus in August 2017, and thereafter (same month) implemented.

In other words, node operators and miners saw it in their interest to pass segwit... 

If you want segwit reversed, then you are likely going to need to muster up overwhelming consensus to reverse it, and you are likely going to need more than some vague claims of purported undue influence including overcoming lots of reluctance that building has been done and continues to be done upon segwit related systems.. not impossible, but an obstacle since bitcoin is a community effort rather than flopping around because some people are whining that they do not like the direction of bitcoin blah blah blah.



Sure Satoshi set up a lot of parameters in bitcoin that are still followed but they are also a product of a community, so even though Satoshi set up a lot of parameters, it is likely that he disappeared for a reason, which also allowed bitcoin to continue to evolve and to be developed on and to improve as a community... and surely there are ways to contribute and to propose changes and to get involved in order to attempt to affect various changes that you want to see or you believe that you can achieve consensus for your proposals.


They do not run bitcoin... remember consensus?  Blockstream and Greg could both disappear from the scene and bitcoin would continue, but they do not need to disappear, and it seems to me that both are well respected in the bitcoin community but each of them still have to convince others if they want to propose some changes or to get them passed or adopted or tested or whatever various stages proposals get reviewed and are frequently a product of a whole number of people and entities rather than your narrow conspiratorial framing regarding supposed undue influences.


I doubt that it is necessary for me to respond to each of these individually, because they seem to be failing and refusing to accept that these various changes, to the extent that they exist or even matter materially or are negative, are not the product of a few individuals or blockstream et al.


Well, if you know so much, then I am glad that you are participating and educating the rest of us (or at least trying).  I am not convinced by your various points because I have seen variations of that seeming nonsense on a number of occasions, but hey, maybe you have exposure to some enlightening information, participation or interactions with some of the characters that you seem to hate so much that may have ended up locking some well-intended people/proposals out of bitcoin in terms of being considered or being tested, and I will grant you that you might have some information that I don't have.  And, I am not even saying that convincing me matters or I am anybody important except I participate in this forum in terms of my having had been investing in bitcoin for about 6.5 years and continuing to try to follow various aspects of bitcoin within my time and abilities within my own reason and discretion. 

Over the years, I have seen a lot of stupid-ass BIG blockers putting forth their nonsensical conspiratorial points similar to the ones you are making, and I have seen how a lot of those whiners went over to bcash forks, but hey some of those folks were just lying about their concerns about wanting BIG blocks and merely using those ploys as a means to want to cause it to be really easy to change bitcoin (in other words change governance), and like that is NOT going to do much if any good to have bitcoin really easy to just change in any willy-nilly way merely because a bunch of whiners are complaining but neither putting forth valid and sound proposals nor convincing others in the bitcoin community to adopt, code or test those proposals.