I seem to read this argument all the time - for example here or here - that GPUs are more general interest, so consumers are more likely to have them, and so, because there's one less filter specializing miners, mining remains marginally more democratic. This argument is given as a reason for why ASIC-resistance in ETHash inhibits mining from being very centralized.
But 1) ETH mining pools remain very centralized (top 2 have almost 50%?) and 2) qualitatively, it seems to me that most people with GPUs who mine are those who bought the GPU in order to mine (impression built from r/EtherMining, eth.stackex posts, etc. Happy to see evidence towards the contrary!). (1) seems to suggest that the ASIC-resistance didn't inculcate much miner decentralization in the first place, (2) seems to suggest the reason for this is that there's low overlap in people with GPUs who use them for other things and people with GPUs who use them to mine.
Does anyone have words on either point? Am I missing the original (or, another) argument as to why ASIC-resistance inhibits centralized mining pools? Why don't these args seem to play out in practice? I'm just generally interested in the phenomenon of miner concentration and would like to hear smart arguments as to what to consider.
