Oh hell with it - I'll answer first, though it really be your turn. Better - I'll answer in the form of a question...
And how is kumquats not hairbrushes?In no sane set of definitions for 'bigger blocks' and 'centralization' are they equivalent. English much?
Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.
Now here's a question for you -
It doesn't really matter how bad SegWit is. What you advocate is far worse.
As:
a) you think SegWit is The One True Way;
b) you cede that SegWit requires more resources of a fully-validating node than the status quo to represent each transaction; and
c) you seem to value centralization very highly;
then:
is your true goal to 'decentralize' by reducing transaction count to zero?
I vote none of the above. I want Bitcoin to stay Bitcoin.
I don't want it hijacked by democracy loving sheeples.
You don't seem to get it. What is most important for me is consensus and how Bitcoin is developed. 75% is not consensus.
I don't really care about SegWit since it's a soft fork and not something forced upon me.
Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.
I don't believe SegWit will centralize the network.
I am however certain that forever growing blocks will centralize the network. And your answer didn't change my mind about that.
SegWit isn't perfect but at least it's opt in. It's not forced on anyone.
Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.
Care to explain this in detail?