Nessas horas que eu queria uma opinião atualizada dele. Aumenta o tamanho dos blocos? É usar segundas camadas e pronto acabou? Buscar uma solução milagrosa?
Tem umas postagens antigas dele sobre o assunto, encontrei essas:
"Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it."
Fonte: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15139
"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate."
Fonte: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6306
"The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices."
Fonte: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28917
"Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial."
Fonte: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7687
É o famoso "depois a gente vê o que faz".. mas acredito que ele seria à favor de grandes blocos e contra tokens/NFTs.