The size of the blockchain is indeed a serious problem, but in relative terms as the cost for providing an immutable digital entity it is quite justified.
I can wholeheartedly sympathize with your predicament with the blockchain size being too large to incorporate a node on your machine and as do many other people.
I have noticed a lot of people switching from a completely hosted node to using just the light resources without actually hosting the whole node since the setup was consuming overall on both the hardware end and on the expertise aspect of it.
There might arise a situation where the Bitcoin ledger is so humongous that people need to host data centers to actually host these transactions, but it would still require consensus similar to how hyperledger makes use of multiple servers to reach consensus beforehand.
Hyperledger makes use of consensus reached by multiple servers to attain this sense of immutability, however for bitcoin, I haven’t come across any plans as to how they intend to regulate Bitcoin from reaching a state where it would still be secure and easier to maintain.
Ethereum on the other hand lets you mine without requiring much computational capabilities and they do have plans of switching from proof of work to proof of stake which would certainly ease things out a little bit more for the average miner.
There does however happen to exist a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal system where people can vote to bring about improvement within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
I trust we would come across a way to manage our mining resources and prevent it from turning into an oligarchy or a monopoly as long as our average miners refuse to quit mining since a node has the ability to vote only if it has all the previous transactions to be recognized as a valid block.
We have the power to bring about a change together as long as we continue mining as the saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall.
is currently doing a wonderful job by empowering more and more people to set up their nodes.