[Citation needed]
So this is the main argument of developers against increasing the block.
1.Increasing the block -> increasing the cost of maintaining full nodes -> reducing the number of full-nodes- > reducing decentralization.
2. Don't increase the block - > Expenses do not increase ( saving users money ) -> the number of full-nodes does not decrease- > decentralization is not threatened.
Thanks to the Core developers, we are briskly walking along the 2nd path. Only now these same users pay from $ 2 - $ 10 fees for transactions. Excellent cost savings for users.
I think you don't understand definition of [Citation needed], see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_neededUnless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.
How can non-mining nodes change the Protocol?
UASF, UAHF, use client which follow different protocol, etc.