I agree, running a full node is low complexity, I run one off my laptop whenever it's turned on and my I notice absolutely no difference unless it's been turned off for a couple days and takes a couple minutes to download and verify everything.
You can manage miners with much less resources than running a full node.
You can even get a router to do it (if it can be flashed).
This kind of hardware won't support a full node.
Changing the protocol means changing the reference client.
In my view, they should split the client into a server (bitcoind) and a client mode.
The server would just verify transactions and blocks, and wouldn't be able to create new ones. You pass it blocks and transactions and it tells you what is valid.
It simply defines what counts as valid transactions.
This would be a much simpler piece of software.
Making changes is hard though. It has been described as redesigning a plane while in flight.
They want to keep risks as low as possible (which is reasonable).
A formal/official p2p mining pool system means that they don't have to update the official client.
Mining against a centralised pool means just pointing their hardware at the pool.
Any p2p system has a larger overhead than that.
A very lightweight p2p mining system might be acceptable. Miners can use a proxy to actually connect to the pool.
The p2p pool would have to run on those proxies.
Their POW is used just as much as a larger miners. Virtually all hashes that are performed are worthless.
Right, in fact, there is a disincentive. You have to run a p2pool node too.
Currently, miners don't have to run a full node. They can connect direct to a mining pool.
How does adding p2pool capability to the reference client help?
As far as I can see, you are making the reference client more complex. There is no real benefit and now the reference client is more complex and more difficulty to maintain.
Fundamental changes to the protocol pretty much create an alt-coin.
That is a hark-fork change right there.
Maths please. How do you work that out without looking outside the network?
You get a 30 second target by reducing POW by 20. If the minting fees were also scaled down by 20, then everything remains in balance.
However, again, it is a hard-fork.
Ok, so you are proposing an alt-coin explicitly then?
Ideally, if you want changes in the official protocol, you need to do it in a way so that old clients will still accept new blocks.
This is called a soft-fork. If you make the rules more strict, then old clients will still accept the new blocks, since the rules are more strict than their requirements.
If a majority of the miners follow the new rules, then blocks which meet the old rules, but fail the new (stricter) rules will be rejected by miners, so never get into the chain.
So, you need to understand the protocol. Maybe what you want needs a hard-fork change (fails backwards compatibility). But, you should try to find a soft-fork way of getting your ideas accepted.