Could "good enough" vs. "ideal" be part of the problem?  Clearly Bitcoin is up and running good enough for now; denying undermines credibility.  If there are theoretical issues underneath it then it is good to be aware and think about how to address them; denying this is unwise.  What are the real risks of one of these underlying issues flaring up enough to wreck Bitcoin?  How urgent is the topic?  Is someone exploiting us right now?  Can we detect it?  Perhaps the bad guys aren't being as evasive as they could be?  It might be really hard to be totally evasive.  Should we encourage pools to stay under some threshold or risk the wrath of the community at large?  Should we ask the US military to drop bombs on mining sites in China?  Oh, sorry, I went too far. 

Me exactly.

1) agreed; the debate is fees vs. adoption; I, for one, would rather delay the onset of fees in favor of adoption for now
2) agreed; with >5800 full nodes, I sincerely doubt all that many will be forced off the network unable to keep up
3) agreed; which is unfortunate; I, for one, would like to see non-mining full nodes paid at least a little bit

What is the measure of being live?

I run a full non-mining node (Core) 24x7 (or close to it).  Clearly it costs me money to do so but it's ok I don't mind.  I do very few transactions, less than one a month on average.  I'd like to be paid but won't shutdown my node if I am not.  I have not detected any issues with bandwidth but I do have a pretty big pipe (86Mbps down/12Mbps up (measured)).  I do allow incoming connections and regularly see >70 of them (might be limited by my old/weak router).  Occasionally I see my node listed as the relay (silly but I feel a little proud).

I am very much inclined to switch to one of the packages intent on increasing the block size.  I want Bitcoin to thrive.  I prefer to keep fees low in favor of adoption for now.

Does it make any sense at all to think about paying folks running full nodes (with or without all old blocks) even if they aren't mining?

Integers only?

One guess per person?

How many nodes do we need to satisfy initial syncs?  https://bitnodes.21.co/ indicates there are over 5,800 right now.  That seems like plenty for sure.  As pruning becomes more popular, who's job is it make sure the number doesn't dwindle too low?

What would happen if managed to lose every copy of the old blocks?

If everyone ran in pruned mode then would that be a problem?  How would a new node catch up from the beginning?  I'm sure it's just that I am missing the obvious point.  Sorry to be such a dummy.

Maybe the idea is at least a few nodes will always keep the full history?  I am willing to if that helps.

As much fun as it is to debate, er, spiritedly, really, could we just try 1.1MB and see?  I'm not even asking for 1.2MB or anything larger until after we see.  If 1.1MB is an utter disaster then we can go back to 1MB, right?  Also, independently, please do get SegWit figured out and tested thoroughly.

I do have a financial stake worthy (at least to some) of consideration.

Hmm, if jumping up from 1MB to 2MB is controversial then perhaps we should try incrementing to 1.1MB or something just to get our feet wet.  If we like it then we can try 1.2MB and so on.  Waiting until the backlog is huge is not wise.  The tension between full blocks = higher fees and barriers to adoption is certainly interesting.  Personally I think we should favor adoption for now and defer cranking up fees until a little later.

I sincerely appreciate your efforts; I sincerely wish you the best.  I don't think you can do it (but that's almost certainly due to my shortcomings) but please do try; nothing would make me happier than to see you succeed.  If there's anything I can do to help then please do not hesitate to ask me and I will try my best.  For example, I would be delighted to review your white paper when it is ready.

Hmm, I can be dense.  Unprofitable PoW; seems like it will be pretty hard to get folks to participate.  That said, I do run an unprofitable full node without mining.  So, maybe we would get some altruistic folks to do it *but* aren't they at risk of being over-taken by bad guys willing to run unprofitably?

Sweet.  Greed is an awesome motivator.

All systems are ultimately vulnerable, period; comet strikes, bloating sun, heat death.  That anything operates even a little well for even just a little while is the miracle we call this universe.  We are spoiled by the illusion of stability.  Still, Bitcoin appears to be going along sort of ok for now; I will not withdraw my investment yet.

If there is a malevolent entity behind Bitcoin then please be advised that you aren't getting more than you've already got from me so please end the charade now.  Hmm, perhaps it hopes to ensnare more unwitting fools.  Bummer.

Then again if there isn't then maybe Bitcoin's shortcomings can be patched up before they are exploited.  Hmm, I think I will know when there's a problem because I won't be able to extract value.

ASIC-resistant PoW seems like a delightful idea to me.  Is memory latency the barrier to stand upon for the ages?  Hmm, that sounds familiar.

This is an immensely valuable topic to understand as deeply and completely as possible.  It would be good to refrain from using any offensive language -- it is possible and often common to misunderstand other points of view.  Let's get the papers written and distributed for the community to evaluate.  If the ideas are sound then hopefully they will be embraced.  If they are not then hopefully they can made be made sound or abandoned accordingly.

Membership: I stood up a full node (non-mining) without any registration with a central authority.  I trusted the software (weak on my part personally but do have at least one person I do personally know very well (my son) building from sources) and the technique it uses to find the "real" Bitcoin network.  I do compare my full node state from time to time with the "public" state as reported at Blockchain.info et al -- although I have become complacent over time.  I feel confident so far but understand that this might bite me in the future.

An ASCI-resistant PoW does seem valuable to me.  Is memory latency the right barrier to stand upon for the ages?  For example, is http://community.hpe.com/t5/Behind-the-scenes-Labs/The-Machine-HP-Labs-launches-a-bold-new-research-initiative-to/ba-p/6793690#.VreSn2b2aUk relevant?  Doesn't cache size eventually eliminate the memory latency issue?  Perhaps the problem size (not just difficulty) can be increased as blocks come in faster and faster?

Ok.  Is there another way or do we just wait for the block reward to be halved to the point where the transaction fees carry us?

We don't know the backlog at those time but AntPool puts out empty blocks often during big backlogs whereas I haven't seen an empty block from Slush ever.

Any and all minors, large pool, small pool, and/or solo, ought to suffer trying to put out partial blocks when the backlog is big enough.