greenuser, arguing against yourself makes no sense
Peer-2-peer is exactly that ... individual, not collectivist.
Centralised pools,
like my own as well of course, are not the design of bitcoin.
They represent a large point of control of bitcoin and thus a risk of simplifying an attack on bitcoin by interfering with a (very) small target.
Currently almost 60% of bitcoin is effectively controlled by 2 people.
That is not at all in line with a “A peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” design.
If USA went off-line, well, then there's the rest of the world still online anyway.
It's not USA vs China, it's a peer-2-peer world wide distributed network, that currently has MAJOR centralisation in 2 people in China.
There are other sizeable pools and miners in China, fortunately not under the control of those 2 people.
There should be more for the safety of Bitcoin.
There is of course the other issue of the GFW ... but that's a whole 'nother discussion
--
FYI: this is also one of the reasons why I've stated that my pool has a limit of 10% of the network - even 10% is high, but at least that limit, if it was chosen by other pools also, would mean that the distribution of bitcoin control would mean it would be safer from attacks than it is today.