You wot m8?

Bitcoin is already designed to centralize regardless of what the block size is because energy costs on the globe are not uniform, giving you some type of sparse grid/matrix covering the earth like this:



Such a centralization factor could be survivable if this was the only negative variable built into the system, but then ASICs came along to give you a secondary, multiplicative, negative effect and turning that matrix into something like this:



The creation of ASICs was the doomsday event and now you just have a cartel controlled rent seeking usury system with no hint of any type of Nash equilibrium.  I don't believe this gives any credence to Lauda or UASF forker's "proof of node" scheme, which is just a backdoor Sybil attack, it just means proof of work is pointless if you can't defeat ASICs and have a system always mineable by commodity hardware that can't be "cornered" so to speak.  (proof of stake has also always been pointless with no value, don't even mention it)

The third variable about proof of work I left out:  economy of scale.  There are arguments economy of scale would also terminally centralize bitcoin, but then there's a few contradictory arguments like the waste heat being useful for a water heater or something.  Some seem to think the waste heat would only be useful on a small scale, but I imagine industry would figure out a way to make better use of it eventually whether it's running a green house or other obscure scenario.