Segwit is backwards compatible with the old consensus rules it did not break anything.
segwit is not backward compatible
segwit tx's is set to be (ELI-5) invisible/ (ELI-15) not validatable by old consensus.
if you looked into it you will see terms such as what gmax named "upstream" filter nodes and LukJR calls "bridges" which is where if a old client just connects to the network and received the current block data the same way a segwit node does. it wont be understood.
a segwit node has to act as a translater and convert the chain of 2017+ into a different format specifically for the requesting node.
https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg
in short. if segwit nodes had a bug. you cannot just manually copy and paste the blockchain data from a folder to another folder for an old client and carry on. its all completely different.
so with all currnt nodes being strict core2017+ policy/rule following nodes. if core nodes did bug out they cant just downgrade to an earlier version. because the data would not have a translater.. (the translator has the flu)
EG. the 2013 levelDB event would have crashed the network if people were not able to just downgrade without a translator required.
back then they didnt need a translater so downgrading was simple.. now thats not the case. and makes the network more fragile to bug attack of a client running exact same ruleset and codebase
even the guidelines on upgrading to segwit say. if you want to run an old node, due to the network not wanting to act as translators for old clients(ban-hammer) you would personally need to download a segwit client. and white list yor old node to get accepted and then let your segwit client translate data for the old client. where by your old client treats segwit transactions as not requiring validation (funky tx's)
(image above simplifys the waffle)
imagine a system of checking passports. where in a decentralised world every passport needs checking.
segwit is set to be a diplomatic immunity holder that pretends the block creator validated them and so the decentralised consensus network do not need to check it.
as for the 35% of the community vote.
actually you AGAIN are reading too much reddit propaganda. your nearly at the point of sounding like a scripted sheep. antpool had less power then propagandised. loads of people were screaming "china china china" when there were things like slush pool which was based in thailand. there were other pools in iceland, georgia, and multiple other countries.
even funnier thing.. BTCC was a big lover and advocate of segwit. they even leant one of their spokesmen over to blockstream (mow) to help promote the bilatreal split plan.. and yet ven now BTCC refuses to have confidence to put its block rewards on a segwit(BC1q) address
https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000000b02343a0bd93fda8be0298c1bf16d0b084c1c014d567e oh look 13TET .. not bc1q
and if 95% of the community really wanted segwit.. how come only 10% or less is actually using segwit
again you have ignored the whole jgarzig+blockstream stuff.. just to continue the VER WU scripted kardashian distraction drama.
also yea 65% opposed cores roadmap. core should not have said "attack, lets deport the opposition". but instead compromised. so that it stayed as one network of full community support.
anyway. as for the asic boost drama
that was a whole big laughing comedy. asic boost actually helps. if veryone used it then the network becomes mor secure and hashes blocks faster and with a higher difficulty than a network that does not use it.
but by gmax screaming its a threat. now a pool can use it while the core loyalist rfuse out of loyalty to gmax drama.. and so the ones using it can build blocks faster..
imagine it this way.. GPU mining days. everyone knew ATI was fastr than geforce. but imagine if gmax said ATI is an attack by having a bettr way to hasha block. lets boycott ati.. gmax loyalists would buy geforce and hash at a slower rate. allowing an outsider to come in with an ATI farm and ovr power it..
howevr back then people wer less loyal and more decentralist and so people went for ATI which made the network stronger knowing that a GPU farmer using geforce would have no chance
as to you saying
"Does the direction of the network has to be what Satoshi wants? I thought it was supposed to be decentralized."
firstly its not about satoshi's wants.. he has gone. its about a feature that was built specifically to address issues of a community ivide that if used would not upgrade the network without majority support.. core AVOIDED that mechanism by first throwing out the competition. rathr than finding a majority community agreement (compromise)
as to the freedom to fork off
yea i got no problem with clams(unilateral split), litecoin(zero day fork) which pretty much just grabbed the code and done their own thing on a separate network
but when it comes to the community wanting certain things happening on a certain network. throwing them off the network via double team deception(via bilateral split) so that one team gains the stronghold. and then ringfenses the pools (via Fibre) so no one outside the team can use the same tactic against them. thus turning bitcoin core network into a tyranic monarchy.. is not decentralist practice, not moral, not ethical and goes against the whole point of the world thinking "bitcoin"(2009-2013) was decentralised and uncontrollable.
