They don't cause centralization.
Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?
nope.
I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.
I am far more concerned with a bad actor that controls asics than a botnet owner trying to 51%. You see the botnet owner will not kill his income while whoever can afford the asic ranch may very well be an incentivized adversary. You can figure out the rest yourself unless you are the dullard you think i am.
You said a botnet having 50%+ wasn't centralization. Now you're twisting it into what they'd actually do with that centralized control so you can try and "win" an argument that you just lost with that tactic. We can certainly have a discussion about what someone might do with centralized control. But that's different than the fact that they have it.
I do not believe a botnet will ever have a large enough control of the hash but playing devils advocate i stated they were not incentivized to make an attack if they could even get in that position.It's far more likely a pool will achieve the necessary hash than a botnet ever attacking. Botnets comprise very small hash potential (most of the machines are not high hashing machines). They just control alot of them. But there is alot of latency in there as well as it is much more decentralized than most pools as people tend to join pools with low latency.
You should ask the big miners the game theory behind it as i do not claim to be an expert. I am only stating that i believe you have no clue what you are talking about.
And it sounds to me like your just trying to create Fud.