I have been a fan of Gun's and the HackingDistributed blog for a long time. It's one of the few sites I regularly read on my RSS feed, and he's one of the few people who really seems to "get" Bitcoin and on-chain scaling.

That said, I am surprised at how much this article seems to miss the point, given his otherwise stellar work. Gun, like many in the field, would agree that one of the defining characteristics of Bitcoin is its decentralization. Why, then, push the narrative that the current state of mining centralization is okay? Furthermore, how could it possibly be fine with him that these groups use a patented process - exclusive patents go against everything Bitcoin stands for - to cement their domination over other miners?

In my opinion, the fact that this was hidden invalidates much of the anti-SegWit rhetoric coming from the miners. We all can agree that the soft-fork is large and complex, but it is well-engineered, well-tested, and solves several hard problems while opening Bitcoin up to a variety of novel scaling situations. Now we learn that the opposition's absolute opposition was based on a hidden advantage, not any technical failing of SegWit itself. It is not possible to consider many of these criticisms honestly given this regressive, protectionist hidden motive.