Allow me to post in advance, looks like we will be back soon...
That bird... (is it a penguin?) is going the wrong way.
[edited out]
Bitcoin may have started off as electronic cash, but it had become rather obvious, even as early as 2017, that Bitcoin was destined to become Gold v2.0 and potentially grow so high in value that it would be pointless to (be able to) use it to buy coffee at Starbucks, just as no one would use a chunk of gold as petty cash. In that sense, there is absolutely no need for a very large block size or for a huge transaction throughput. Things are fine as they currently are (post-SegWit). Bitcoin is slowly but steadily becoming the premier digital store of value, and in this role the block size is fine. As and when a real need arises to increase it, it can be done in a secure, controlled way, and not pushed by a gang of greedy control freaks, as it happened in the 2017 BCH fork.
Of course, we have likely come to realize that bitcoin is both store of value and medium of exchange, and of course, I can send you $100 (or even several million dollars, if I were to have such sums) with less than $1 fees, and no one can stop me, as long as you were to give me an address - (not that I am making an offer).
We even have some layers of payments on bitcoin too (some handled by third parties and others, such as lightning network, attempting to be less handled by third parties) in the event that we might not want to transact directly on the bitcoin blockchain. We also know that bitcoin has some other programable features that are either in development or likely still to be discovered.
We likely came to realize that the 2017 battles were not just about what bitcoin is (was) technically speaking, yet they were also attempts (as you suggested) to make it easier to change bitcoin, which likely might have ended up breaking bitcoin, if we would have found out that a bunch of financially powerful folks could get together and change bitcoin at any time that they were to want to. We may well have future social attacks on bitcoin, and there might be some forgetting about (or confusion) regarding how come bitcoin is valuable, including that as bitcoin gains higher and higher market cap and continues to attract the gravitation of monetary value, bitcoin is likely going to continue to serve as both a means to store value, yet also transactions will continue to be done on bitcoin at the base layer or at higher layers, which surely the ability to transact and to hold our own value apart from 3rd parties continues to bring bitcoin value, even though some of the recent attempted attacks on bitcoin is to undermine self-custody... and surely as long as developers continue to develop and a decent amount of coin continues to be held in private hands, I doubt that the third party custodians holding the coins of others are going to be successful to fuck up or to destroy bitcoin, even if they are likely going to continue to hoard a lot of coins within various centralized locations....and maybe some folks will come to realize that it is better to own coins directly rather than having coins held by MSTR/Saylor, by Blackrock, by coinbase, or by some other centralized location.