The innovation in Bitcoin is decentralized consensus. Because of this, we are able to have a decentralized network that transfers value. I believe we all agree that a good number of full nodes (whether that be owned by miners or by users) are needed to keep the decentralized nature of this network.

However, there are plethora of disagreements on how much is needed to keep this network decentralized. In my opinion, we should aim high in order to keep the network decentralized and thus should do all we can to make it easier for anyone to have full nodes. If the cost of running a full node is so cheap and so fast, SPVs wouldn't even be needed; this removes the need for many things such as the inefficient (and not working) Bloom filters. The thing that stops individuals from running full nodes is how long it takes for the initial synchronization process. To conclude, imo, cost of full nodes should be so cheap that every wallet would be a full node that has its own full copy of the blockchain (you could prune if storage is the problem).

If we don't aim to have as much full nodes as possible, that means that there is a "good enough". Where would this "good enough" be and what are the reasons you came to this conclusion?

Any thoughts are very welcome and appreciated.

Not necessarily.  It's worth considering that not everyone has a PC or similar device they can dedicate to the task.  I know plenty of people where they just own a tablet or netbook that wouldn't really be suitable and then other things like smartphones and gaming consoles, which aren't of much use in running a full node either.  The idea of everyone having a "home computer" has been somewhat diluted as of late.  People seem to prefer their portable devices now.  Because of this, SPV is always going to be a significant proportion of the userbase.

That's one option, but I'd like to see if it's possible to reclaim the main Bitcoin Discussion forum with a few decent topics.  We can't just abandon every board when it gets spammed.  If this topic starts to be filled with low quality content, simply press the "Report to moderator" link for the offending post and mark it as low quality. 

I'd argue that, regardless of what people think a safe number should be, it's less about reaching an agreement on what that number is and more of an "encourage what you can, but accept it for what it is" kind of situation.  Even if we did all know what this "good enough" number was, we don't have any kind of direct control over it.  Nor should we.  But I'd like to think that the path we're on at the moment, with numerous optimisations being worked on to make transactions smaller and more resource-efficient, plus allowing for off-chain transactions, is the right way to encourage a healthy node count.  What more can we really do?  Ultimately, we have to let people use Bitcoin in the way they want to use it.  If they want to run a full node for the extra privacy and security, great.  If they want to rely on SPV, that's cool too.  It's not something we should try to force.

SEC has the right to postpone the adoption of the decision.

1) for 45 days in case more time is needed for studying
2) another 90 days to justify the rejection of the application
3) and another 60 days, if again more time is needed to study the documents submitted
Total 195 days

In addition, there is an application from another stock exchange NYSE Arch. SEC's conclusion regarding ETF should appear no later than September 21, as this decision was already postponed.

What does it mean? Most likely September 21, SEC will report a negative decision and the price of bitcoin will fall dramatically. The decision on the application of CBOE will be delayed again and again, but in the end a positive decision will be made, causing a rapid increase in prices.

All this means that we have not reached the bottom of 2018 
I really want to be wrong, but logic tells me the opposite.

Provided you draw a clear line between individual businesses implementing their own KYC procedures and nothing whatsoever being implemented at the protocol level, then that's fine.

Businesses have laws they have to adhere to.  Even if those laws are a direct cause of identity theft, by mandating that companies store a vast trove of customers' personally identifiable and financially sensitive information for hackers to then steal.  Yay for dumb laws!

The KYC procedure in my opinion is fraudulent. You do not know who they will sell your data and how they will be used in the future. It's just very life-threatening.

On the one hand, I see KYC Compliance in bitcoin can help to gain legitimacy. But, on the other hand, this is contrary to the principle of bitcoin anonymity, I believe some people will object and will not accepting KYC's compliance with bitcoin.