Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?
The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible."
Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up?
There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future. That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point. The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc. that exist for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations.
You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam.
As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion.
You need to try harder trollfi this isn't up to your standards...