if by 'shill' , you mean unpaid advocate for on chain scaling, Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin, and the entire community...then yes, guilty as charged.
If true (in bold), we wouldn't be having this same discussion for the past three, maybe four, years now.
But hey, I know you wouldn't dare let a little truth interfere with your narrative.
You're absolutely right -- I should have said "large portion of the community".
But you know what Holliday...I am still advocating for what you want: A censorship resistant Bitcoin.
Do you think that because you have some experience running a node, you're now better suited to plan Bitcoin's future than Satoshi? It was the plan all along to have large mining nodes.
You believe in the digital Gold concept of Bitcoin without fast , cheap transactions for coffee, but I wonder if you have really thought through the game theory here. Bitcoin can only remain digital gold if it has high security. It can only have high security if there's a lot of hash power. It can only have a lot of hash power if the miners are getting paid a lot. The miners can only get paid a lot if people are willing to pay a high price for Bitcoin. People will only pay a high price for Bitcoin if there is a lot of demand. Where does that demand come from? It's a combination of a lot of things, but if you take away the demand for widespread use, if you take away the utility, then you are left with "well they demand it because it has high security". So its somewhat circular logic. It could work, but its questionable this will be able to compete in the long run with other cryptocurrencies that offer high security AND usability. At least it is very risky. You do not seem to acknowledge these possibilities.
A large portion of the community may want bigger blocks, but a larger portion of the community, measured by every metric besides pool operators, want a real scaling solution.
No, you aren't advocating for what I want. Giving more control to miners (which is what BU does) is not conducive to a censorship-proof Bitcoin.
I never suggested that I am better suited than satoshi to plan Bitcoin's future. However, I am willing to consider the opinions of many experts who are actively involved in Bitcoin. Since we've already had this argument and you've apparently forgotten, I'll quote myself to save time.
Satoshi was a genius. No doubt in my mind. Either that or a group of people well versed in many different fields.
However, that does not make him perfect, and relying on his now outdated comments on how to move Bitcoin into the future would be a mistake. His ghost lacks all the data we have amassed since he left us.
Also, sometimes inventions outgrow their inventors and become something they never expected them to be.
Satoshi's biggest failure, in my opinion, was not hardening mining against centralization (pools are actually worse than huge server farms IMO), and I've spent a large part of my time on Bitcointalk trying to get people to wake up to that fact.
Making blocks larger does not necessarily mean that miners will earn more transaction fees. Larger blocks will simply fill up with free transactions until there is once again pressure to compete to have your transaction included in the next block. Once there is pressure again, coffee drinkers will resume their complaining or the blocks will have to be made even larger. That's not a valid solution for either coffee drinkers or decentralizationists.
Using a second layer which can aggregate many small transactions (with small fees) into a single on-chain transaction (with a large fee) is beneficial for both coffee drinkers and decentralizationists, however.
There will only be demand for Bitcoin transactions if Bitcoin offers something unique, which in my mind is a system which allows censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. Increasing the resources required to maintain the block chain is in direct opposition to the properties which promote decentralization. A system where you have to record every transaction into a permanent ledger which all full nodes must maintain forever will never be able to compete with centralized solutions when it comes to speed and efficiency, so I'm not sure why we should base future improvements on attempting the impossible when we can base them on strengthening the very properties which gives Bitcoin it's unique use cases and thus it's value.
There is no mainstream demand for Bitcoin transactions (I'm not sure why "big blockers" like to pretend there is). The only people who will find it valuable are those who are willing to intentionally evade the capital controls implemented by their governments. Pretending it can compete with more efficient, centralized solutions while maintaining the properties that make it valuable, and attempting to "improve" the protocol based on those imaginary use cases, is pure folly. The average debt slave can't even write a check for $500, so I'm not sure why anyone would think they are going to purchase bitcoins in order to make their everyday, mundane purchases.
Pretending other cryptocurrencies (which must also maintain a permanent ledger) won't run into the same issues as Bitcoin should they obtain similar usage is silly.
I think I've fully acknowledged every possibility in your post.
So, shall Bitcoin be only a toy for playing speculation games, or alternative tender of payment? It doesn't prove strength of Bitcoin at all - you can bet on on football results as well. 
