The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.
That is a claim that certainly can be made.
On the other hand, it is a known fact that the same technique can be weaponized:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/In the current environment. I'd say that the onus to prove honest dealing lies with the one using the technique.
You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).
No. You're so far off that you aren't even wrong.
Before we can talk intelligently about decentralization:
Step 1: Define
what the word meansStep 2: Establish that decentralization is, in fact, desirable, and why
I haven't seen much in the way to establish either one of those points, just a lot of begging the question by assuming that "decentralization" has a coherent and stable meaning, and that it (whatever it is) is obviously good.
I'm still not sure what you're going on about with "overcapacity", as I've never used that term.
Are you talking about
well-known and understood principles of economics?