To be clear I do not think we should restrict the throughput of the network so that people can continue to run full nodes on raspberry PI's. I do not think this was ever the intention for Bitcoin either. It is true that there is a balancing act here, and that decentralization is effected in different ways. However everything considered I think that increasing the blocksize will be better for decentralization overall compared to leaving it at one megabyte.
You guys obviously have no clue as to what an 'example' is. I could care less about the Raspberry PI, but I know a lot of people using those to either mine or run nodes.
Sure. I have literally hundreds of Raspberrys and Beagle Boards in my mine. But do you know what they are for and why they're completely irrelevant to this debate? Are you just writing stuff to shut us up?
...Who cares about the Raspberry in particular...
You do.
And you seem to think everyone should run a full node. In the name of decentralization. I really think you misunderstand how decentralization works. You cannot expect that every user should actively maintain the network. It's much more important that those who do maintain it understands what it takes and accepts that burden. A person who can't set up their network properly, who can't really understand the difference between a full node and a light client, and gets a crappy experience because the node is using too much bandwidth or is deteriorating the wifi, should never run a full node. You need quality HW and at least semi-qualified people. And to really add to decentralization they should keep an eye on the behavior of the node. Those weirdos who's just sitting there with a beer looking at transactions, they add more to decentralization than 10 "dumb" nodes.