If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular.
That is explicitly Faketoshi's intent, not Satoshi's.
What do you mean with that? I am pretty shure that he did a post about that here on the forum.
There is no post of him that explicitly says so
It is kind of funny that some people want to figure out exactly what Satoshi said and what Satoshi would do, which is quite problematic, even though there does seem to be some logic in terms of knowledge of design choices, yet at the same time, there are quite a few reasons why it does not matter what satoshi said and also it also likely does not matter very much what he would say - except for the purity of the logic play, and to convince based on the underlying reasonings that may or may not still be applicable towards bitcoin as it is evolving and perhaps some divergences in what could be chosen. .and does what any one person or group affect the direction of consensus.
So, thank god satoshi disappeared, whether he did it intentionally or not and whether he is still amongst us in another form (under another nym - and perhaps the more than one person idea too) or not.
Many scammers tried to push on this narrative, which is false, as far as I know.
Surely the block limitations are not easy choices, and people are going to want to attempt to align with Satoshi's vision (meaning the real vision .. .not the fucktwat scamcoin). .. so yeah, some folks were probably less genuine than others in terms of what they were trying to push and why they were trying to push it.
They even created bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv, and made billions . But those coins are scam.
Probably, we could argue that bcash and bcash SV were somewhat temporarily successful in their exploitation of BIG blocker theories, yet there were quite a few other coins attempting to take advantage of various talking points about bitcoin being broken and that their coins was better in the various ways that bitcoin was broken.. and so we were likely less prepared for the level of spam attacks that were occurring towards the end of 2017 and a bit more than half of January 2018, but the narrative about bitcoin being broken due to such clogging of transactions at that time did carry into quite a few shitcoin talking points.. for sure even ethereum played a lot on those kinds of ideas of bitcoin's supposed inabilities to scale on the first layer.. but then when some of those coins became somewhat successful (by getting increased traffic), they ran into similar kinds of scaling problems and sometimes even with seemingly worse trade-offs.. at least most bitcoiners are not going to easily concede to any shitcoiner's claim to have had solved the scaling problem, since hardly any of them are even proof of work (anymore)..
I would think that an overwhelming majority of regular bitcoiners are going to recognize the POW is the actual innovation, so any of the shitcoins that are not at least attempting to employ some version of POW is not really accomplishing much in terms of decentralization (or at least the kind of innovations that bitcoin was attempting to accomplish).
There are some proof of work coins out there, but still they are not really that large, so we would have to be attempting to compare the proof of work coins to at least be in the right category of comparisons... and maybe since my whole post is devolving into losing the plot, we might at least be able to concede that there is no coin that is even close to bitcoin in terms of putting the scaleability issues to work within a proof of work system.. .. and don't get me wrong, the various shitcoins are not just faulty because they are proof of stake because many times they have all kinds of flaws that should cause a whole hell of a lot of skepticisms.. such as ethereum's problem with the number of coins that were issued in the first place and even how many coins actually exist.. now I am really devolving.. I better stop.
