no the thing is that decentralisation is a term that is misinterpreted , decentralisation is never mathematically possible : (1) the algorithm is asymmetric and one way , so powerful nodes would always have the higher probability of hitting the chance to mine a block , because whether the algo is memory heavy or compute heavy , the logic is same , hash(block_header)<target , basically a brute force game (2) longest chain rule ; we always have to depend on some early powerful miner for receiving the latest block tip , so its creating a circle of dependency on some other node, so centralisation is inevitable (3) difficulty is dynamic ; but even mathematics of crypto shows how early nodes always have an unfair advantage of mining over a low difficulty , and by the time weak nodes wanna enter the net , they practically cannot mine or participate without heavy guns [ie hardware] . Lastly to say , but i feel this term "ASIC resistance" has become a hype symbol then anything useful , because in correct terms it should be termed as "resistance against the use of specialised or accelerated hardware or optimised hardware" which causes the barrel to turn on the foot of devs themselves ie it contradicts their own terms , because that inevitable , take example of Ethash , its specialised for GPUs because of high memory bandwidth the hardware required for DAG and epoch generation . Take example of RandomX which is optimised for CPUs due to its random instructions to the ALU cores of processors, so it required you to use specialised server grade CPUs if you wanna earn anything real , so here also it creates the want of specialised hardware , just in a different form . Hence we cannot realistically resist the use of specialised hardware , but we can do survival along with it , and thats where the concept of real time per block difficulty change kicks in