Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

We centralize because we created/use a economical system where that such system behaviour is promoted.

We could also use a system which demotes or outright forbids too much centralization.

So it's not inevitable at all.

Or at least it isn't if you just look at how people are likely to interpret the title, reading "centralization" as in "central to the whole system".

Local increases in "centralization" are normal, e.g. people centralize in cities, but calling that centralization is misleading IMHO. They are local aggregates not central to the whole system.

More important if we e.g. look at (biological) nature centralization is nearly always the prelude of collapse and anything more then very localized centralization is often an indication for potential problems.

So we probably should change our system to demote too much centralization.

Classic peer-to-peer networks have low connectivity. Scale-free networks are resilient (most nodes don't matter), but are vulnerable to attack (kill a few "hubs").

DHTs (such as underlying Holochain) are scale-free, but also automatically heal from attacks.

Most importantly, they operate essentially unimpeded even in the face of successful network partitioning attacks.

All while each "agent" (You) retain complete cryptographic control of your data and identity.

And, if/when you want to migrate your data (exfiltrate), re-package the functionality (create new clients, or integrate multiple networks), or even completely fork the entire application -- all of this is at your fingertips, and no entity can stop you.

Keys can easily leak; there was a high-profile example not so long ago where a bunch of GPG public keys shared factors due to a bug in generation.

In my modern, urban, life I have 1000 different options for my food supply or friendships or housing or employment. Aside from a very unengaged, far away, government there is no centralised entity in my life. And even that I can replace by moving country.

100 years ago, there was one major employer in my area (east London), a few grocers and bakers, people's activities were tightly controlled and linked to family status. Participation in all elements of economic and social life was tightly controlled by a small clique of economic, clerical and political elites.

People think about centralisation as a corporate or government thing and a unitary national authority. But it's not. It's part of every later of society. When we lived in tribes, the chief had totally centralised power over almost everything. Villages were the same with an overlord somewhere you'd never see. Towns were lighter but still quite centralised. Modern cities and urban life is about as decentralized as it is possible to be.

That's my understanding of centralisation. Sorry it's not better explained.

What your describing is just a different, more local form of centralisation. If your bank manager gets to refuse to give you your money, he has all the power. That's very very centralised, even if it's centralised in him, not in a CEO or a president.

I have 4 accounts at 4 different banks. If one of them refused to hand the cash over, even without any redress, I have 3 other accounts to fall back on. So my life is much less centralised than Wild West Bill.

The same applies to almost all elements of life. Back in the wild west, no one would date you if you didn't go to church. The priest literally had centralised power to refuse you a partner (and God help you if you were gay or the wrong colour or from a "bad" family). Today no one knows or cares. Very very decentralized. Ditto employment or housing or crime and punishment.