This silliness keeps coming out now and then. If you are genuinely interested, why didn't you search a little on the forum?
As calculated here, it takes at least 5 years for each 1 TB in the blockchain. And 1 TB of HDD is cheap and gets cheaper by every year passing.
Then, you should know that a node needs to download big amount of data only at the first sync, until it's catching up. Afterward the stress on the internet connection is not that big. And internet, again, is evolving to larger bandwidth and cheaper.
So... do you see any
real problem? Cause I don't.
Increasing the on-chain capacity will result in an exponential increase in the block size over a given period of time. Going by the general usage of it's user, it is very likely that as the database size gets bigger, we'll see fewer users running full nodes. Reason being, no one wants to synchronize for hours or days to use Bitcoin, adding another hour of synchronization every time they open their client.
The problem isn't really about how expensive the storage is. Yes, it is getting cheaper but no one would realistically get a new HDD every now and then solely for Bitcoin when there is a far more convenient alternative available. I can see it being a problem if bootstrap synchronization is still the modus operandi in the future and thus discouraging the general userbase to be running Bitcoin nodes.
It is possible for certain compression to be used on block data or transaction size. Problem being that there is also a certain degree of tradeoff for your CPU as well.