No.

The goal is to avoid drastic increases to the amount of information which peers are required to share between each other in order to keep the network operational along with retaining the ability to run a full node (which may be required to become a mining node (use your imagination)) on easily accessible consumer grade hardware.

I fully expect outright attacks on Bitcoin in the future. To me it seems like we've passed "peak freedom" in the civilized world, and Bitcoin is an extremely powerful tool for obtaining and maintaining individual freedom.

This is far more important to me than cheap, fast confirmations.

Besides, I have no problem with increasing transaction capacity and decreasing transaction costs through the implementations of a second layer(s) which is perfectly compatible with the above.

I'm not convinced that the people who complain about the cost of transactions (I think they are ridiculously cheap considering the utility the provide) are the type of people who care about the benefits a full node provides. The fact that comparisons are often made to centralized services (VISA, PayPal) which are nothing like Bitcoin is a prime example.

Also, I spent a lot of time and effort in the past warning about the problems that will arise due to mining pools, and did everything I could to promote p2pool, but it's pretty clear that ship has already sailed (p2pool still exists but it never got the type of support it needed to thrive). In my experience, miners hash rate providers are generally near-sighted, care little about the health of the network or the long term viability of Bitcoin, and are only there to make a quick buck in fiat profits. I'm not exactly keen on handing more control over to their bosses (actual miners, aka pool operators).