I agree with you that mining centralization is a problem that needs fixing. But PoW cannot be abandoned, because the only way to create value as a measure of GDP must come at the expense of GDP. This truth has been reinforced for thousands of years and I'm doubtful that some clever programming will ever change it. Satoshi's solutions were innovative, but they also didn't violate any rules of the universe.
I also invite you to our PoW vs PoS/alternate consensus thread. It is ironic that my last post addressed exactly this. I believe PoS coins to come at the expense of GDP:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770591.msg8869805#msg8869805BTW: AnonyMint hinted that a solution to centralized mining could be to somehow make mining always unprofitable, that way all mining comes from individual nodes contributing miniscule amounts of hashpower while their wallets are open.
This sounds like a clever idea, and I think it could work if the logistics were figured out.
I also agree with you 100% that tx fees will not sustain miners when block rewards vanish. I have talked about this a lot in other threads. Again, this is not a problem with PoW, only with bitcoin's implementation of it. It is the myth of the finite money supply. Block rewards don't have to vanish as new coins can be minted on demand as long as GDP is expended in the process. But this is a discussion for another thread.
Good point that this is not an issue with PoW, but the implementation. Sadly though many PoW Alt cryptocurrencies have followed a similar path of implementation when it comes to emission curves. It is odd that this issue hasn't been thoroughly addressed in the Alt coin subforum and new coins haven't adopted their implementation. I guess everyone just hates inflation, which I can't really blame them.
Regarding innovation: The point I was trying to make was that one coin that devotes all it's resources to perfecting one innovation (i.e. XMR with anonymity) isn't necessarily worse than another coin that tries to tackle several. You and I obviously disagree on what we consider to be "important innovations". However, there's a huge demand for anonymous tech right now, and it's pretty clear that the XMR team wants to get it's flagship feature right before worrying about other bells and whistles.
Perhaps monero seems to be taking over the alt forums because it's been a very hot topic lately. Even if an XMR-specific forum were announced, I doubt XMR related threads and discussion would suddenly go away.
That is all understandable, everyone has their own opinion on what innovations are more or less important. I try to look at all innovation as being equally important in the long run. Maybe this or that innovation may be somewhat gimmicky, but it can give someone a good idea for a future innovation that is not gimmicky, and give them a head start on the coding of it. I see any changes/experiments/innovation as being for the greater good of the future of cryptocurrencies. I know not everyone agrees on that, so we will agree to disagree.
I'm not budging on my point that you guys have caused some of the backlash yourselves though by creating so many Monero threads. I really do feel that is the reason the trolls decided to start their FUD campaign and reverse trolling against you guys. You were getting too much good press and exposure for their liking. Maybe tone it down a bit, or consolidate your threads into only a few. It will afterall give you more time to pick up more cheap Monero if you truly believe in its future.