"everyone hates segwit"?
nah mate.
ok segwit has the most "consensus", not everyone hates it, some poeple love it, but its not like it isn't contentious for a large %, if that wasn't true why would there be all this controversy...
The mere fact that there is controversy does not mean that the controversy is valid.
If you got a bunch of nutjob shills that are able to convince others to whine about a bunch of stuff that seems to make sense (but really does not make sense) based on a bunch of misinformation, that still does not make the astro-turf controversy valid.
Bullshit,what we have here is:
By the way Jay,in case you didn't notice BITCOIN IS ALREADY CENTRALIZED!!!!!!!!
How much hashrate do you little peons have?? 20% 30% I don't think that will effect ANY changes in Bitcoin
I don't know what you are talking about.
It seems that you are accusing me of the thing that you are doing, and for what purpose? What point are you trying to make?
I think that you are trying to confuse matters, and you are framing the current situation in some kind of incorrect way... also known as mischaracterizing the current situation including your attempt to describe what is core and what is core's role and what is seg wit in the scheme of the current situation..
Core and it's vision of bitcoin still constitutes the longest chain, in the last couple of years we have had three named proposals that were aimed to be hostile attempts to take over BTC by creating a hardfork and changing governance. First, XT then Classic, then the current version of BU et al. So far, none of these hostile take over attempts have been successful, but they do not give up on spouting various kinds of threats and attempting to get more and more people (maybe miners, etc) to get on board with their vision. Sometimes, especially recently, they also dupe folks into actually thinking their threat is actually going to take place and to threaten the well-being of bitcoin.
The fact that bitcoin is not changing does not make it "centralized" as you like to conclude, but so far it is still showing that a centralized kind of take over is not an easy thing to accomplish - even with this most recent attempt that did seem to at least have some kind of smoke screen of support that was showing 50% of the mining or something like that depending on how you piece meal together the miners and whether they would actually follow if a hard fork were to occur.
So segwit is another question that is separate from core, but it is a scaling and malleability "solution" that has gone through the official channels to be proposed, then discussed, then agreed upon and then coded and then tested and then gone to the signaling stage. Initially, it was a pretty non-controversial upgrade, but the whiners have seemed to have gotten a lot of misinformation out there about segwit but also the whiners are quite a bit disingenuous anyhow in terms of really having bitcoin's interests at heart - rather than buying into bullshit conspiracy theories. So yeah, in the end, recently, this seg wit proposal seems to be getting into the 30% of support on the mining end, and of course it seems to have larger levels of support in other non-mining circles. We are about 6 months into seg wit signaling, and maybe it will continue to increase, and maybe bitcoin will have to figure out a way to survive without seg wit.
Personally, I am thinking that seg wit is so obviously a good thing that it is likely going to end up being implemented in one way or another - even if it may take bitcoin a couple of years to get there. But what do I know? There are a lot of unknowns in the future, which makes it difficult to predict with any kind of precision, but I can still venture my own estimations.
Would be awesome if you ask me. 