block size does not harm decentralization, how block size is increased can do that. for example if you increase it suddenly to a much bigger number now it will end up centralizing bitcoin but if it is increased slowly with the advancement of hardware and internet speed then it can't do much harm.
There's still a larger problem here that most people don't discuss. Even if hardware advancement allows us to significantly increase block sizes over time, that doesn't address whether doing so is compatible with Bitcoin's hard cap on supply.
Without inflation, the system needs fee revenue to continue incentivizing miners. The block size limit is the only means we have to enforce scarcity of block space, which guarantees fee revenue. Otherwise, Bitcoin's Byzantine fault tolerance may be threatened as block rewards decline in value. You can't have a network worth many billions or trillions of USD where miners have no incentive to secure the network.
what your not realising is that you cant have a network that is core demandd to stick with under 600k transactions a day as that then just makes the network only useful to under 600k people wanting to use/monitor/care about bitcoin daily.
people end up using other networks that are cheaper and able to process more than 600k transactions a day and bitcoin is left stranded as the coin no one wants to return to because the costs become too high..
LN thunderdome: btc and LTC iou's may enter, only LTC iou's may leave
secondly the REAL incentive to pools is not for the next few decade requiring fee's. the block reward is sufficient enough
(in short dont even bother bringing 'fee's for pools' into a scaling debate unless its a few decades in the future)
thirdly fee COST USERS funds, not incentivise users.
arguing that things need to be done for user benefit, then push that argument aside to then say fe's need to rise to benefit pools. is just playing games and empty excuses as to why scaling should be stalled/stagnant
again forcing utility to remain at 600k a day transactions helps no one, incentivises no one and actually makes peopl want to care less about bitcoin if they cant use it as and when they like.
so if it costs something just to monitor 600k peoples transactions as a user.. and then costs a user $1+ just to use it themselves. then its the fee's that will push people away far sooner.
the real goal would be to
allow more transactions
allow the combined (lower fees) to accumulate to be more as a total.
thus making bitcoins blockchain USEFUL for users. and also cheap to use for users.thus users continue to be full nodes
which after years of progressive growth would then become enough to cover costs for pools eventually(when pools actually need it)