I mean if credibility wouldn't factor in your decision, say Bill Gates comes up with this project, nobody would doubt his credibility.

I am curious whether this "decentralized" sack of shit community could actually be fiercely organized to better Bitcoin.

And I am by no means bashing the community, most of you are great people it's just that decentralized everything = in disarray. Are the Bitcoin members dedicated and informed enough to pull this off or will they be herded like sheep?

Again, depends on how it's split up.

I'd want to say yes if credibility wasn't in question.  I'd like to believe it would be more then worth the effort and risk in my opinion.

i am not completely against centralized mining to support the network,

 but are you mathematically sure that such a model will help secure the network along with very little transaction fees?

then if transaction fees are low then how will domestic miners be rewarded in the days block rewards go very low?

The coins earned by fees is tiny compared to the block reward.  The economics of mining are mostly dictated by the block reward, not the fees.  The fees only affect the profitability of completely filling blocks due to the increased risk of orphans (but that is a separate issue).  So no I don't see how any group is extracting above-market profits from fees by monopolizing mining. 



Fees have been dropping when measured in bitcoin and rising when measured in dollars.  This was expected.  Fees may drop in the future when the block size is raised, new blocks are communicated by hash to reduce the orphan cost, and floating free-market-based fees are implemented.  



So why would you want lower fees below their market value if you are worried about blockchain bloat?  

I'd like to believe it would be more then worth the effort and risk in my opinion. So probably yes

I wouldn't donate to crowd funded miners. I have no problem with the small transaction fees. It give incentive to continue mining, especially when there will be no more bitcoins generated.

Exactly what I was thinking when I thought about it so this is the reason I am creating theoretical scenarios.

And your proposed answer to this seriously is "To prevent that let's give loads of money to a 'trusted' person so it sets up hardware and nodes on behalf of us in a decentralized fashion"?

You're trying to troll right? Or I just don't understand your idea.

I mean you just identified why the decentralization of the network actually is a needed thing and how at the same time the way mining works right now is undermining the decentralization. And your way to fight it is to throw decentralization over board completely and trust a single entity with handling the network and transactions? You do realize that in that case you just could save loads of money and just pay using paypal right?

I think the only valid answer to the problem you identified is to change how mining works in such way that it gives an incentive to mine solo again. And I do not mean change the algorithm or move from PoW to PoS.
What I have in mind would be a "license" system. The network assigns a "license" to mine to any full node that provides a certain hashrate in the network. That license expires upon finding a block and a new license to the same node is assigned by a slot system. That slot system would work like this: The Network tries to maintain a constant hashrate (let's go with the current ~65 PH/s) aswell as a minimum number of active mining nodes (let's say 1,000,000). The upper bound for the hashrate a node would need to provide in order to be assigned a "license" (or mining slot) would be calculated by dividing the target hashrate by the minimum number of active miners. So with the example numbers: 65 PH/s 1,000,000 = 65 GH/s. The lower bound should be half of that at most to ensure the slow nodes do not block slots for long times. People with hadware that provides too little hashing power would need to pool people whose hardware provides more hashrate would need to split it up into more nodes. When the target hashrate is reached no more slots are assigned and any nodes that would qualify for a slot go into a waiting line. In order to prevent the possibility of attacks by entities with lot's of hardware that waiting line is not a FIFO line instead when a slot becomes available a fitting new node is chosen at random by the network based on waiting time (say a node from the 1000 longest waiting nodes is chosen).

If I haven't overlooked something critical (which I surely have as this was thought out as of the writing of this post) the consequences of introducing this change would be:

• constant difficulty and thus an end to the hardware arms race. hardware manufacturers could concentrate on lowering the prices and increasing the energy efficiency of the hardware.
• the network's safety from manipulation could be better guaranteed