Steve Ellis’ reply illuminates the speculation behind the preliminary alternative of smaller, much less frequent blocks properly.
In follow…
Since your query was about “lowering” the problem, that means you have been referring to a fork that might change the principles of Bitcoin, a far greater tradeoff could be {that a} change to consensus like this may in the end need to be launched by a gaggle of individuals and agreed upon by sufficient of the community to power a chain-split. An entire chain break up has many concerns that isn’t actually a technical query, however moderately a debate on politics, sociology, economics, and sport idea. Primarily, everybody (miners, nodes, holders) must agree that the hard-forked coin is Bitcoin.
The shortcoming of anybody or any group to alter these guidelines is essential to the worth proposition of Bitcoin at this level, and the injury it could trigger to belief within the system as an immutable one could be far, far larger than the slight loss to decentralization that the quicker block instances would carry.
Lowering the problem like this may brick ASICs, so you are not going to get the miners, who’ve spent a whole bunch of thousands and thousands on tools already.
This challenges the immutability of Bitcoin, so you are not going to get the nodes or the holders.