limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property).
What you are describing is security through obscurity, I favor security through ubiquity.
What I described is security though DIVERSITY (in conjunction with diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency).
I didn't say nodes should ONLY exist in obscure Asian jungles and Florida swaps, to the exclusion of ubiquity.
I said those far-flung geographically/politically obscure full nodes are essential complements to the high bandwidth ones hosted in data centers (not, as you dishonestly imply, replacements for them).
That would be plainly obvious if you hadn't omitted the quote(s) to which you were purportedly responding.
Knock off the lying by omission and context redaction, or GTFO.