you could allow blocks to be 50MB in size. and at the same time, only let transactions be 500 bytes maximum or something.
Then, a single user will do more than a single transaction.
1TB is old tech. they are making hard drives 20+TB now. lets get with the times.
You don't want to run a full archival node, even if the size of the chain is below 1 TB. Would you run a node, if we increase it? I guess not.
So, why do you want to increase it, and not participate in the costs of doing so?
The way you could implement such a thing into Bitcoin would be like you could have DNS entries for a particular domain where you define one record for the alias you want to use, containing a signed BIP322 transaction.
You mean LNURL for on-chain payments?
making OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF non-standard
It could help, but would be not enough, when you have mining pools, willing to bypass such limitations.
Your statement isn't relevant with today's condition
It somewhat is, but taken from another angle: big mining pools will handle it, but regular users may stop running non-mining nodes. And that will indirectly lead to mining centralization, because then, nobody except big pools will agree to run a full archival node 24/7. And in that case, it will be possible to skip more and more steps, if users will stop caring about validating the output, produced by those mining pools.
For example, "peg" your Bitcoin to L2 and remove the "peg" from L2.
For that reason, decentralized sidechains are needed, because then you end up with a single, batched on-chain transaction every sometimes (for example every three months). And I guess, sooner or later, people may be forced to connect their coins, and to handle more than one person on a single UTXO, when it will be too expensive to make single-user transactions anymore.