No, I am actually trying to understand the argument you are making and seems to me that you take a lot of things on good faith for the game theory to work. In the replies above, you have repeatedly said that miners will be kept in check because "community", "media" will know as soon as anything happens. But this has to be detected right? That is what a full node does and in a decentralized system, we need more of them.
For getting rid of a false discourse, one should absolutely remain focused. --snip--
Core devs of bitcoin somehow have become convinced that bitcoin is what it is and there is no hope to do anything disruptive about the two BIG problems: Centralization of Mining and Scaling. They've gone that far to adopt Buterin's stupid Trilemma assertion about denouncing feasibility of solving the two at the same time (with a fake third factor, security, he has added to emulate something he has read in high school, the Combined Gas Law 
).
You are reading too much into the thoughts and minds of core devs. I think their sole motivation is infallibility and robustness of bitcoin which leads to a conservative approach, understandably so. The discussions that happen at the bitcoin mailing list and the activity in bitcoin repository are proof that it is open-to-all and everyone is trying to find a better way forward.).I'm advocating for both: decentralization of mining and scaling bitcoin at the same time but it is very important to note: a decentralized mining scene needs full nodes, many many of them, solo miners are full nodes, remember?
So, I'm the one who truly loves full nodes. The give-up strategist? No, he is just a fake lover.
This idea assumes two things:So, I'm the one who truly loves full nodes. The give-up strategist? No, he is just a fake lover.
1.) Implementation, testing and adoption of fundamental changes to the block structures such that pools are no longer needed. Do you know of any such implementation? Working code, testnet, altcoin ?
2.) It also assumes that One node= One vote. This is no longer the case due to ASICs. The fundamental assumption that everyone running the core client would also own hashpower changed with ASICs. That is why, in the current reality, Full nodes are what they are, till of course we have alternative implementations.
I'll bow out of this discussion for now with one last word. Code speaks louder than words/ advocacy.