Yes, more hardware requirement==more centralisation. But if the devs don't forget to implement the optimizations part of the plans (i.e. "The Future Looks Bright" in
https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/) then everyone can run a full peer node in the future just as easy as now.
O look. The pruning bullshit.
If everyones prunes the spent outputs, how does a full node synchronize from scratch?
From 'trusted' archive nodes? Gimme a break.
The Gavincoiners use at least three canards to justify their attack on Bitcoin: pruning, disk space, and scale.
The pruning canard relies on experimental yet-to-be-invented vaporware and excludes synching from scratch, necessitating trust in archive nodes. The entire point of BTC is to replace trust with proof. When you want a prunable mini-blockchain, use Cryptonite instead of BTC.
The disk space canard overemphasizes the undisputed high density and availability of economical storage, in order to distract from the far more important bandwidth constraints under which much of the world (and hardened TOR-like networks) operate.
The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard. Low TPS isn't an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold. The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions. Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin.
Bitcoin is no stronger than its ability to deal with an attack such as was undertaken against Kim Dotcom.
^This^ is why we must keep Bitcoin small, nimble, diffuse, and defensible.