You see, if power was distributed over many thousands of independent miners, all such lists would have thousads names
This statement is logically false.
I forgot the word 'evenly' before 'distributed'. (I used it elsewhere when saying that same condition.)
Is that why you did not understand the logic?
I did understand the so called logic, but it was false.
It is false because it assumes all such lists are showing power, but in fact they all show something else, generally pools. I've never seen a "mining power list," have you?
Even with a relatively small number of pools you can still have power distributed over many thousands (or even more) independent miners, because those miners are able to move their hash rate. No pool can be confident of maintaining a given share because hash power can shift and new pools can be created.
In fact this was not the case with ghash since much of their mining was their own equipment.
You presume ghash miners are used on it's own pool. It's a fair assumption, but it might behoove ghash to make a deal with other pools for no fee mining in the interest of decentralization.
True its a poor assumption because ghash.io miners are in fact split between several pools.
This is a different layer of centralization (they can suddenly move them to their own pool, for example).
I mentioned a few of the layers of centralization in my previous post.
-ASIC makers
-Miners
-Pools
-Devs
Each of these are too centralized by some measures. (the world of bitcoin is still kinda small).
The silly thing that Jorge does is assume that not only will these all perpetually get worse (instead by most evidence they are trending toward better), but that it will be fatal and are fated to be so. There is not any evidence for his assumption, it appears to simply be prejudicial. He started here with it and it may be his job to perpetuate it since he does work for the State.