nodes did not need to upgrade to segwit in summer 2017!!

core made it so nodes that dont upgrade are handed a stripped block
thus nodes did not need to upgrade to give permission

again your amnesia has made you forget your admiration flop of loving the "compatibility" fix they done
core devs didnt need 9500+ nodes to go into the debug/console to RKT out opposition.
core devs had their own strategic nodes to handle it. again nodes didnt need to do anything

core even made it so pools didnt need to upgrade their nodes. all they had to do is change a version number in their block id even while running old nodes just to stay on the network

segwit 1x got activated without needing true consensus because core CODED a way to bypass true consensus for the summer 2017 event

dang your flip flop amnesia is playing you up

what YOU dont understand is bitcoins byzantine generals theory solution of consensus 2009-2015.. had slowly got eroded down. and by summer 2017 core was able to totally bypass it without users vote

...
what you dont understand is bitcoin lost its open diversity and multiple brands working on the same level playing field of true consensus.

devs are happy to admit as much. they are totally happy showing off their involvement. so i see no reason why you have to try insinuating they were not involved..

bitcoins revolutionary decentralised network ethos of 2009+ is not the same as bitcoins distributed core centric network of 2017+
i really think its time you either take the core defense hat off.. coz they dont need you wearing it. or you need to update your research beyond the echo's of promo material handed to you 4+years ago

---

EDIT to address the post below instead of spamming the topic

about the stripped blocks and downstream/bridged/filtered nodes

1. nodes getting stripped blocks are not getting full block data. they are also not part of the main relay stream. its why they dont get unconfirmed segwit transactions to relay. its why they dont get witness data to validate a segwit tx is valid,
its why thy dont relay blocks to other nodes (because segwit nodes would not accept a stripped block

2. they are NOT taking full advantage of the security and utility of the network because they are not fully validating the blocks they are just giving transactions a pass without independent validation and just treating is as a pass because thats how the code has been wrote. and guess who wrote the code, core..

3. bitnodes.earn.com suggests over 10k nodes. but do you realise that less than 7k nodes are part of the full validation/ relay stream of nodes(and i am not talking about 30%+ spv/lit nodes either, im talking about 30% of nodes that were/meant to be/have been full validation nodes.. but are not)

4. your flip flopping how the way segwit was activated was a way to have certain nodes stay on the same network even when they didnt upgrade their node to say they were able and ok with segwit. (thus hypocritically admitting 95% true consensus was not reached, but making it sound like a good thing)

but those nodes didnt get a vote in a true consensus. you dug yourself a hole.. by you trying to twist the bypass into a positive you actually admitted the negative.

think of the logic. how can 70% being full relay/validation capable and showing readiness for segwit AT MOST NOW(so lower numbers then) have contributed to a 95% agreement..
dont you get it. 30% of nodes allowed to stay but not part of the main relay stream means 30% abstain...which is not 95% agree.. and back then the numbers would have been less that 70% ready, meaning higher than 30% abstain/not agree. and if you did include the nodes that got kicked off(total objection) the number would have been even worse where there would have been more like a 50% non agreement

again not near a 95% full community agreement..

5. you also want to pretend history is different 'because core said that' (facepalm) now your sounding worse than just a echo chamber repeater.
maybe you have to realise that 'those securing the network' is not 95% of the whole community of nodes that were told they were still 'full nodes' even if they dont upgrade.
maybe you have to realise that 'those securing the network' is a much lower number then you think. as its definitely not the 10k nodes of bitnodes.earn.com.
core messed with the 95% rule and done a few different tricks such as NYA and bip 148 and other things with strategic nodes

6. i find it funny how you try to down play the controversy of 2017 to sound like it is just me alone that was some big massive influencer/objector, decision power.. yet atleast 30-50% of the network found segwit1x controversial and not 5%
also me having an opinion on a forum is discussion. you keep saying how i pretend cor needed my permission. again as if your trying to push that i am some big player.. again your exaggerating social drama..
i am voicing my opinion on a discussion forum and also reminding people of what actually happened in regards to the 2017 controversy. you are the own trying to twist the power play around to try making core sound innocent and then double twist to make it sound like there were only a couple objectors.

my opinion, is simple. node statistics. code and even some devs willful admissions
 without a full unprovoked, un wishy washy, untricked game playing, true consensus. core would not have got 95% for segwit1x activation using a real consensus mechanism in summer/autumn 2017
core would have had to have gone back to the drawing board and recode something that would have been more community acceptable.
but core didnt. instead they done their tricks and used thier strategic nodes to fake a 95% acceptance

even the segwit2x part which you were very vocal about celebrating. was not down to 10k nodes (lets say9500) all independently going in and upgrading and saying lets ban thousands of segwit2x nodes to prevent 2x activation
again it was only a few strategic nodes that done that.

7. saying core done it as a softfork.. is funny..
core actually instigated a controversial hardfork in summer 2017. to gain control of the network to then have enough control to be able to then soft/inflight upgrade the network autumn+ 2017
atleast wake up to reality.

8. and before you flip flop again. the nodes that are on the network are not on the same level playing field in regards to validation/relay. infact the number is far less than 70% are at the main relay/validation stream layer
you might want to do some research
(and im not taling light/spv either before you insinuate)

pre CORE changing the rules of consensus and doing the consensus bypass. (pre summer 2017)
core needed communities permission to ACTIVATE a feature..

as displayed by them only getting 35% spring 2017. which they hated.

but instead of going back to the drawing board and coding something else that would have got community permission (consensus) by offering something the majority would upgrade to

they instead stuck with the same feature and instead changed how consensus should be reached by doing the compatibilty bypass and the mandated strategic nodes to kick off blocks/opposition and fake choic of a fake option for sgwit2x to fake a consensus activate segwit1x. by which users were not needing to upgrade 95% to segwit1x to give permission (compatiblilty and aparthied ensured that segwit1x would activate at lower)

and now the network is unopposed due to fear of being regulated off the network in rkt campaigns. core can do as they please

and please dont try insinuating that i am the only opposer
and please dont try insinuating 9500 nodes all manually banned nodes and rejected blocks
and please dont try insinuating it required 9500 nodes to al upgrade to segwit1x

atleast do some research on cores code tricks to win core dominance

which is why now core can do as they please due to 'compatibility' and their strategic nodes and people are now just sheep
(the only insult you can find i mentioned) unlike your insult onslaught.

P.S devs dont need defending to pretend they dont control the network. they are more than happy to admit it. Luke certainly loves his 'inflight upgrades' and his involvement in the mandated stuff
sipa and gmax loved adding in bc1q tx formats spring 2018 without require network permission

so try giving the defend core dev stance a rest. they are happy that opposing node brands would be rekt off the network or stripped down to downstream/filtered nodes instead of being part of the real consensus relay stream part of the network

the 95% activation threshold was not reached by having 95% consent of a full community
strategic core controlled nodes(fibre and dns seeds) kicked off the nodes and rjcted blocks that opposed it. TO FAKE 95% consent before such even got to the community.

do you even understand the controversy of 2017
also nodes DIDNT need to upgrade. as they would be treated as "compatible"
do you even understand the controversy of stripped data blocks
do you not understand that core instigated things without needing the community. which was the consensus bypass

dang doomad you literally must have got amnesia or flip flopped so much you cant remember which narrative you were for or against over the last 3-4 years

mass adoption of bitcoin wont succeed by giving out altcoin.. as thats promoting altcoins
EG mass adopting a mcdonalds burger by offering free KFC hotwings.. doesnt help mcdonalds

if you want to concentrate on mass adoption of bitcoin. and by adoption i mean actual adoption.
the idea's are simple

1. locally organise a meetup of local bitcoiners in your area, find 'talent' in regards to public speakers/salesguy types
2. discuss local merchants that are popular in your area that your group and outsiders would benefit from having the merchant accept bitcoin
3. approach the merchant and give them a 'bartab' upfront of fiat to cover any risk in what you are about to propose to them
4. give them a QR code of a bitcoin address and tell them when ever someone comes in asking to pay by bitcoin the merchant displays the qr code and uses a bookmarked bitcoin price calculator to convert the fiat to a btc value to mention to the customer what amount to pay. and then a bookmark of a btc explorer of the qr code address to see the amount arrive.
5. merchant then just processes transaction on thier POS system as cash using the bartab as payment and then your group just refills the bartab of fiat when depleted. and the group keep the coin.

now the merchant is accepting bitcoin without risk and without much techy knowledge jargon.

if each town done this on just a couple merchants. and then requested the towns local media to run a story on it (free publicity for merchant too) it would drive up not just local awareness of bitcoin bit also local acceptance of bitcoin.

yea point 7 is then to get merchant more involved with handling bitcoin for fiat exchange independantly. but atleast getting to show the merchant how easy accepting bitcoin is, is a good easy dip the toe in the water risk free experience

oh mr flip flop.. changing your narrative again
read my quote which you quoted thanks for immortalising that
 FOR A FEATURE TO ACTIVATE
AKA PERMISSION TO ACTIVATE

you then insinuate that i am saying that i am arguing that core need MY permission for their code to "exist"
you wer trying to flop the narrative to try making it sound like i was not talking about activation....
again fools on you when you go and actually quote me using the word activation and not the word 'exist'
also you were trying to suggest how i am saying core needs controller franky1 as permission granter..
yet the quote again is consent of majority of community....

im not arguing about MY permission.. thats you again flip flopping about some social drama you wish to create.
again you have foolishly gone full social drama illogic.. your just trying to dig your own grave now by scraping the bottom of the barrel of misdirection

im saying core have now activated core features without the community which is a diffrnt ethos to 2009-2013/5. because they changed the rules. where they NOW dont need community consent TO ACTIVATE.
bitcoin DID HAVE (past tense) a fair diverse consent/vote/permission system for ACTIVATING features. (by which core only gained 35% vote on in spring 2017). so they went full on REKT campaign and mandatory control campaign for summer 2017

proof is that you pretend that individuals needed to manually kick opposers off (your prtens that 2017 events were user caused not dev code caused(ur never ending defend a dev pretense))
yet there were no event of 9500 users manually going into the command line to ban nodes.
the mandated kick off was due to a few core centric strategic nodes(fibre) rejecting blocks so the community never got thus never needed to decide to accept or reject blocks,
and changing dns seeds so the community never connect to opposing nodes.
where by the now opposing brand nodes dont connect as part of the main relay stream, but as downstream/bridged/filtered nodes.

you may want to try doing some research and dont pretend these are new hints. you had them months ago, so could have saved yourself alot of shame by learning this stuff months ago

knots bitcore btcd are not independant options. they are just the same group as core. under the ruse of free choice
if you look at those options you wont find 'bip' gateways where devs/users can choose/propose options. you wont find they oppose cores rules.
take knots for instance. Luke JR purposefully makes obscene proposals for his knots purely because he knows they are obscene, but puts them in his knots to make it look like knots is a opposing option.
even the NYA agreement of seg2x was a false deceptive opposing option, made purely to get segwit1x activated and then fade out the 2x option once 1x was activated. (NYA agreement chief barry silbert, pays the main core devs wages (dcg.co->blockstream, and BLOQ).. its all just one big ruse


anyway lets address doomads emotional rants of social drama
1. doomad flip flopping the definition of permissionless.
doomad thinks permissionless means core can activate rules and throw nodes off the network with impunity.
well that wasnt the case 2008-2015

yet doomads words infers that core have control because they dont need community consent(consensus) permission
(typical flip flop of doomad in and out of permission vs permissonless, just to try keeping the rug pulled over people)

years ago core would have needed consent/permission a whole 95%.
before they changed the rules of consensus and the thresholds and methods of counting such consent

funny part is high percentage of users are not writing code. they are just using an executable made by core thus they are just doing what the core code allows
after all what real options are there for open opposition if any opposition just ends up getting REKT off the network

even doomads whole emotional outbursts and stance that by me opposing core dominance makes me a threat. is him revealing himself that he is not open/diverse.

here is a funny
consensus.. voting.. "voting needs permission" .. doomad do you know what consensus is. here is a english lesson for you. the origin of words..  take the final 3 letters of consensus and swap it for the letter t
consent

for a feature to activate the feature needs consent of majority.. AKA a vote aka permission to activate
by core devs clubbing together with their investors to do a  strategy of throwing off the opposition to core(pre consent vote). just to force a core feature to activate under a fake vote loyalty count is not a community decision. because it didnt require the community to individually write their own nodes to decide who stays and who goes. it just require a few strategic nodes to do the work.

yep
by fibre (the pool ringfence of nodes) dropping connections and blocks of oppositions. the community without having to do a dang thing would not get opposing blocks. by core aligned DNS seeds not listing certain nodes the community without having to do a dang thing would not get listings of opposing nodes to connect to

and if you think the bitcoin network is highly core run out of true loyalty and support. you are wrong. people were forced to take on a core node or be kicked off the network, those nodes you see that are not core full nodes, are not existant due to fair network diversity. they are treated as 'filtered' 'downstream' 'stripped' 'bridged' nodes. (buzzwords the core devs openly created to describe them(before u dare think its me advocating the buzzwords or the activity))

i do find it funny how you wish to blame users for the network kickout of august 2017. when infact it was lines of code wrote by core devs that caused it.
yep. 9500+ individuals DID NOT just open their debug window and type commands manually. it was core code run by just a few strategic network nodes that done it, where the rest of the network in majority had to do nothing. 'due to compatibility'(consensus bypass)

can you even remember quoting yourself showing your absolute glee and happiness that core done what they done in summer 2017.. or are you going to forget that part
but hey. saying people need to "follow consensus" shows how revealing you. "follow".. i found it funny, you saying users need to follow a certain consent. which is basically you saying sheep. but again if the only insult you think i say is sheep. then you are really digging the bottom of the social drama barrel.
maybe next time spend more time researching bitcoin nd learning bitcoin and stop your insessent need for social drama. if you cant. atleast find the email address for auditioning to be an extra on eastenders of coronation street if your social drama requirement does not feel like its getting fulfilled. as i think you will enjoy reading scripts and being told what to say and do in exchange for some social drama.. it seems to be your niche

consent is not about "follow"..
 true real consent is about independent decision. which has been lost with all the REKT campaigns and social drama's and mandated network kickoff's before independant decisions for feature upgrades could even be made. thus now its all core maintained core referenced and how feature proposals need to go through the core monitored/moderated BIPS route for approval. just shows how the 2009-2013 decentralised diverse ethos of bitcoin has changed

certificates are meaningless..
portfolio of experience is everything.

take for instance Andreas Antonopoulos's fame. that did not rise due to certification. that rose due to a portfolio of good open dialog presentations and speaches

a few years ago when i was involved with looking for experienced people for projects, their certificated resume/CV was not what i looked for. i looked for thier portfolio of actual knowledge

anyone can pass an exam by cramming in research 48 hours before an exam and then forget that knowledge straight after the exam. but actually demonstrating

them using real retained knowledge to actually do something with it, means more

its far better to spend a couple months making youtube videos that can show off your knowledge to the world. rather then hide in a classwork/basement and hope a glossy certificate does the job

oh here we go again social dramatist doomad getting emotional.. trying to poke the bear to talk about persona's.. ill bite

and we have Doomad thats happy that core can write whatever code they like, doomad has said multiple times how he loves that core dont need the communities permission and anyone that opposes core deserves to get thrown off the network BEFORE a feature proposed by core even gets a full vote.

doomad even a few times denied the very existance of consensus and voting,

doomad say stuff like this:
"I don't know where you get this perverse notion that developers need permission from the community before they are allowed to code something. "

Doomad flip flops. all he cares about is defending core and commercialised networks created by devs that want to de-burden bitcoin of its utility. he does not care about bitcoin.

but doomad doesnt want people knowing the roadmap plan. he just want people to just carry on doing as their doing, just download core and carry on without a thought. never to question whats going on, never to wake up to ever have an opposing thought against core. so he doesnt like it when someone comes along and tries waking them up with opposing thoughts.

but doomad does love to poke the bear in a discussion topic and turn it into some social drama, as his way of distracting opposing thoughts and just turn it into some social drama about persona's rather than code/network ethos changes

but here is a lesson
those that want true diverse decentralised network should not be getting excited that one brand/team have 'permissionless' control of new feature implementations

those that want true diverse decentralised network should not be getting excited pre feature activation forks occur. the only time core should instigate a fork is as a result of a feature activation where only a minority of nodes get affected.
NOT as a tool to apartheid / dilute the consensus vote down to sway the vote in cores favour

doomad needs to learn what the real consensus mechanism that handled the byzantine generals theory was, which is the thing that made bitcoins and blockchains such a revolutionary new database technology in 2008-2009.
because by sidestepping such thing with mandated/threatening pre-feature activation forks (like august1st 2017) is not fair/true consensus.

doomad is angry that im just not a ass kissing human centipede, toeing the party line of over promoting devs and their roadmap agenda.

may he either learn to accept diversity and opposing mindsets. or may he continue to be angry that there are people outside his echo chamber that have independant thought and not afraid to use it.

this is a discussion forum not an echo chamber. diverse idea's opinions and discussions should be welcomed
and if "sheep" is the worse insult he can find that i have called people. then doomad should look at his own post history and look at his own slang first, as that would be most shocking

doomad is happy about core devs owning the bitcoin network. he loves that CORE opposition get rekt off the network.
he lacks the understanding of consensus and byzantine generals theory

he is happy that without consensus of a feature activation to cause SOME nodes to have issues with upgrades that a pre apartheid kill off should occur to ensure core dominance and is happy now core are "permissionless" and dont need community consent that the core roadmap is now law.

doomad loves the idea to de-burden the bitcoin network of user utility and persuade users that LN is the future of transacting, he over embellishes LN, over promotes LN, over commits on what LN is and does. and yet seems to have no experience of using LN even after months of requests to get doomad to even use and research such.
he is like a 'phoneplan/cable' sales guy who has yet to try the service himself so is just getting by from using scripts and prompts from a supervisor

doomads flaw in his rebuttle of the thunderdome analogy by comparing to exchanges is that exchanges are just a tool/option.
your not forced to lock funds up for set periods. your not forced to just use one service.

yet the way dev's are playing with the bitcoin network by stifling BITCOIN NETWORK SCALING and instead just adding new tx formats as a gate way to LN, and thn to promote LN as the single scaling solution network is again about de-burdening bitcoin of utility. and persuading users in one direction

thats the major difference between exchanges utility and LN utility. the dev's and LN promoters literally trying to push people into using LN by making bitcoin expensive, unable to handle normal spending habits.

my actual analogy is that of the same gameplay of 18th century banking. taking in gold, vaulting it up and letting users play with promissory notes that are unaudited(unconfirmed) where by fortknox(factories) can be used to cycle bank account fund ownerships around without users having to touch real gold per settlement

thus keeping people away from touching real gold(bitcoin) again. and then offering the option of silver and copper(altcoins) as the settlement option

if doomad cared for the BITCOIN network more then his commercial group. you would not see him defend LN or core, you would see him actually try to promote more BITCOIN NETWORK utility and not these other networks or commercialised dev teams, or pegged coins(promissory notes) as ways to deburden the bitcoin network of utility

seems people dont read the OP properly

first of all the "value"(ethos/utility) the op is talking about is not the price(market). but the reason/utility/usefulness values of bitcoin.

for me a hard fork is what i would call a controversial fork where a large proportion of the community gets affected.
a soft fork is something that occurs with a minority group gets affected
and then what some devs call 'inflight upgrades' is where no one gets affected

for instance
the 2013 leveldb bug was a temporary hard fork which didnt result in an altcoin creation but did affect a large amount of the population at the time.
another example of a hard fork was the mid 2017 controversy where before a feature even activated, nodes were pushing detractors and opposition off the network, which then culminated in another altcoin due to people not wanting to give up their objections and instead just give up fighting core by just walking off and making an altcoin

a soft fork is when without needing to affect a large controversial amount of users only 5% get affected and they only get affected due to the activation of a feature that reached such a high agreement by offering something that the community could agree on without threat or demand or pre kicking off the network.

then an inflight upgrade would be what happened in spring 2018 where things like bc1q was added and no one even noticed or got affected or found themselves lost outside the network

now with core having what they desired. a network of core nodes that goes unopposed, so that as long as people continue to just sheep upgrade their nodes to the latest core release. core dont have to worry about hard forks no more. they can just do as they please and add what they like. yea i know some people dont want to be called sheep. after all they think they have become enlightened and 'woke' from the old boys club of fiat bankers. but have yet to realise they swapped one boys club for another

bitcoin has lost its diversity and lost its byzantine generals solution now that there is one general in charge of the rule change options.

bitcoins ethos and unique revolutionary feature has been lost. and so now people are questioning what is left for bitcoins utility/uniquness 'values' especially now the shephards herding the sheep want to deburden the bitcoin network by swaying the sheep into the commercial fields of LN and out of the organic fields of yesteryear known as the original ethos of bitcoin

blockchain is not just about decentralising data.
anyone can copy a database and keep a copy for themselves that has a file hash to prove no tampering compared to copies others have.
any database can inlude an entry of a signature proof for ID authenticity

but blockchain real utility is about different regions/locations interacting with data even when they cant agree. as thats where the magic of blockchain comes in, it makes divergent opinions come to a common agreement.

blockchain most unique feature is the diverse ability to bring large populations together and have them all agree on a set of rules

so think less about the use cases of just data distribution security. but more about usecases where different locations wouldnt normally agree on the same database structure

your starting to grasp it
when the market is flat (at its low) you start to see the correlation that when hashrates grow and continue to be at a new high, and you calculate the cost of mining. you then see the markets latest LOW move because less people are going to sell for less as it now costs more.

when the market is flat (at its low) you start to see the correlation that when hashrates drop and continue to be at a new low, and you calculate the cost of mining. you then see the markets latest LOW move because more people are going to sell for less as it now costs less.

again nothing to do with the volatile PRICE or daily movements. but the periodic LOW known as the bottom line support

the hourly/daily market fluctuations are speculative and not predictable and the small amount (few percent) of hobby miners that dont make up the underlying support do react, but this is as i and even the phillipma1957 illustration shows as a small percentage

but this mining:market dynamic has always ben in play and even rcognised by people like hal finney back in 2010
its also why PoW will have more underlying value than PoS as PoS has no underlying cost thus their is not much to support it

anyway we meandred off topic a bit too much. but hopefully you are now grasping the basics of it
a PoS coin has way more chance of dropping to zero than a PoW just for the point of being a zero cost underlying value.
PoS coins rely mor on speculation, hype and utility to give 'faith' value(speculation) to its price

that illustration of 5% changes. is not big farms magically able to make parcel delivery companies deliver same day. and get electricians booked to change fuseboxes sameday.

what your actually seeing is the 5% of mining community that are NOT profitable moving away from bitcoin when not profitable to pool hop to altcoins and then move back to bitcoin.
these pool hopping hobbiests are as the illustrations shows only 5%. which is standard daily variance and not something that indicates strong underlying value support growth. but more of the same speculative up and down.

strong underlying support value that sticks around and makes people not want to sell below a certain value, where the value is higher than previous. is not something reactive of markets. its deeper than you think

regulations DO NOT mean consumer protections

regulations means a business approved gets a shiny sherrifs badge to then monitor and police its customers.
we need to stop trying to scream and demand for regulations that allow banks/businesses to get away with crap simply because they have a licence. and instead scream and demand for consumer protections, where it become easier for consumers to take companies to court(consumer protection)... not the other way around companies take consumers to court(regulations)

i still laugh and facepalm at all the people that think that not only giving a business funds.. but then advocating that a business should be given a shiny licence to then tell users what they can/cant do. while the business is allowed to do many foolish things with users funds

ever been to asia?
you will find that the prison cell is actually bigger than most asian hotel rooms.
asia (mainly japan) are known for their minimalist design

regulations dont give crypto more trust
the crypto itself has built in trust

regulations are about giving business a shiny sherrifs badge so that when people interact with a business it makes people think that a business has authority/respect/trust to handle their funds

regulations are not really about consumer protection. they are actually about giving business authority for the business to police its customers in exchange for bing able to operate and do certain activity that normal joe blogs is not allowed to do

people using crypto dont need or care about business. crypto (true blockchain crypto) is meant to be self sufficient without need of business monitoring users

those desiring regulation dont care about crypto, dont understand the purpose of crypto, and just want some shiny badge that allows business to make FIAT profit.

but here is a funny thing.
the winkles want MORE regulation. and yet its actually regulation that has held the winkles back from just doing what thy wanted 5 years ago
its like inventing a 100metre race, and then asking for barriers to be added to slow the race down purely for hopes it will attract more participants. when infact those that want to just run 100mtres will get peed off with all the hurdles

i guessed right

and so... 2years 6 months turned into half that for good behaviour which turned into 'time served'
i guessed right

TRON by having a CEO is just a business.. not a technology

a technology offers many oppertunities to many businesses, innovators and industries

a business just offers itslf and its customers something.
in my view TRON is the one that has limited itself

i beg to differ and differ
bitmain doesnt have majority.
also the pools like antpool are actually not managed by bitmain.
just check out the blocks solved by 'antpool'. you will notice a pattern of atleast half a dozen block reward addresses and each have their own settings
meaning its not one entity but half a dozen different entities of different management. where by some prefer 'empty blocks' some prefer to include segwit, some dont. which shows they are not managed by the same biased management.

also bitcoin do not manufacture the chips TSMC do.
so its worth researching more and script reading reddit FUD less

i know alot of people just want things to go back to GPU mining. but the hypocracy of that is that then people will cry how AMD-ATI thn own GPU mining

but anyway.. th point i was gonna make is
the pools are geolocated in half a dozen countries just for the ones tagged as "antpool", and managed by different people
at very best the analogy is that antpool is just a franchise licence brand owner. that allows franchisee's around the world to set up their own farm and get cheaper supplies by tagging their hashrate as antpool