sure, there are things that are obviously "bad" for all of the miners.
but the reality isn't as cut-and-dry - there are things that are up for a debate - but with this centralization there is no debate, or rather the debate is short :)
which is why bitcoin xl didn't happen for example.
not sure what your point is - you saying there's no centralization? it's not as bad as it seems? something else?
I've just been refuting your original statements about how decentralized it is and about how miners get to "impose their will" arbitrarily. You seem to think that tomorrow 3 miners can come out and decide to increase the coinbase reward back to 50 btc and there would be no consequence.
I'm saying the system doesn't work like that and that the level of decentralization is adequate.
If these "3 miners" are controlling the majority of the hashing power - which isn't too far fetched from how the things really are - we're literally talking like 10 physical individuals here - then yes, they get to tell the others what to do.
This already happened in the past and looks like Ver and AntPool are trying to make it happen again. And they know full well that it's not that hard to do:
>>> "Ver says he plans to step up lobbying efforts, especially in China which is home to the majority of bitcoin mining."
and again this lobbying^^ will only need to be applied to a few concrete individuals again because of the extreme level of centralization of the hashing power.
I see what you're saying, but you originally said that miners get to "impose their will". If Bitcoin miners have announced support for Bitcoin Unlimited and the market price hasn't crashed in response, what does that tell us?
not sure what your point is - you saying there's no centralization? it's not as bad as it seems? something else?