You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?
What's worse?
Small people can't host bitcoin - or small people can't use bitcoin?
Do you dream of a world where every poor man can proudly spend his hdd to host a payment network only the rich can use?
Logic is a finite ressource, and not every brain is a host of knowledge. Think for yourself!
Edit: answering this, too
and you will quickly find out that only datacenters could host bitcoin in the future.
Please, apply some logic. If we let blocks grow, it doesn't mean they will grow to a size only a datacentre can host. Two posts earlier you told me that there is not enough demand to even fill 1mb blocks. So - why do you fear bigger blocks if there is no demand for them?
I say this the third time: If we ever get so many transactions that you need datacenters to host the blockchain, even solutions like lightning or sidechains will need datacentres; and they will maybe have more potencial to restrict transactions than datacentre-nodes (who will simply be the executor of clientside-signed transactions).
Both ways lead to datacentres in the long run. But while the small block ways introduces centralization in the payment earlier than it needs to be, the big block way keeps the payment processing decentralized as long as it is possible.
It's an irony that you with the name RealBitcoin promote the centralization of bitcoin payments with something that was never part of bitcoin by accusing those who wants to keep payment decentral to be promoters of centralization.
Think for your own and stop following authorities!
Edit Edit: Answering this too
It's already 60 GB, and its growing. If you wanna raise the block size to 8-16 mb later, it will grow rapidly.
Keeping the blockchain is no problem, at least with pruning.
Downloading is a problem and a sector where we need to find solutions, independently if we raise the blocksize or not. It needs way too much time to start a node.