Thanks for these links, usually when talking about it not being decentralized the source is either Forbes or Business Insider. Let's see what your sources have in store.

EDIT:

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03998

Good paper, lots of good research. Identifies that top pools do not change position too often. Shows also that system profits prefer higher pool sizes.

However, fails to notice that pools are made of individual miners/groups and do not represenet single huge datacenters. Groups/individuals can often change pools, and this is not an uncommon practive.

[1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-....

First thing to note is that this is 2013, when the bitcoin world was a lot more centralized (Only one major exchange, MT.Gox, much less visbiiltiy and credibility. I argue that more coverage results in a more decentralized system)

Also, this is not really a decision of centralization, but feels akin to an UN meeting, where multiple actors discuss rationally the best course of action for their community, and then move in regards to that course. No one forced the community to follow their moves, but when they did, the results were better for the whole community.

Of course, if they had not given advice from an authoritarian position, nobody might have listened. Yet, still Bitcoin would have survived, as explained by Buterin: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-...

[2] https://arewedecentralizedyet.com/

See: Pools are not huge data centers

>% of money supply held by top 100 accounts = 19%

Not an accurate measure of centralization. Addresses do not mean single people, or even single organizations. Most of these addresses belong to either:

>Zombie addresses of huge amounts of bitcoin gathered in the early days

>Exchange cold and hot wallets

>Huge organizations

[3] https://fc18.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/bitcoin18-final13.pdf

Commentary on the developer activity of bitcoin compared to other open source code projects. Shows some centralization, but still not even close to a central authority. Not to mention that anyone can join the project at any time. If we say Linux development is decentralized, then we can say bitcoin development is decentralized.

This is not evne taking into account the interaction that needs to be done between the developers and the miners.

[4] https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/....

Mostly about ineffieciencies in mining and decentralization. The core conclusion from the text is this:

"This points to a major dilemma for distributed ledgers: On the one hand,
the anonymity and decentralisation of public blockchains expose them to coordination
failures and externalities. On the other hand, private blockchains
can restore coordination and internalise externalities, but only to the extent
that they involve the intervention of a centralised authority, which goes
against the fundamental motivation for blockchain."

Which I absolutely agree. Decentralized does not mean efficient, I dont argue that.

----
----
----

So all in all, the sources show that the decentralization of Bitcoin could be better. Yet, in all cases decentralization exists, and is not in imminent threat.

To all Bitcoin "centralized" is not only erroneus, but disingenious.