Also note the absence of any thing like, "all aspects of bitcoin may be compromised so that maximum adoption is achieved." Satoshi never framed this as "the fastest and bestest way to send money for all people no matter how stupid or poor they are." Your quoted texts prove my point rather than yours; we need "cryptographic proof instead of trust." When it comes to the money supply, I don't want to trust banks; I don't want to trust governments; and I certainly don't want to trust developers!
Maybe. I love the idea of algorithmic (in a formal sense) determination of almost anything. Money supply is definitely included in that.
But that wasn't the point. Other than the "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" message, what's the hard evidence Satoshi saw the network's main purpose as 'sound money' more than 'trustless payment system'? I still believe the fixed supply in the limit is more due to finding a solution for the economical bootstrapping problem than political/economical conviction, but my guess is as good as yours in that matter. There's simply not much evidence on this matter, to my knowledge.
That said, there
is evidence what Satoshi thought about the max block size limit. Can't quote this often enough, it seems:
The threshold can easily be changed in the future. We can decide to increase it when the time comes. It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed. If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use. Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.
Conclusion: Whatever one's arguments for or against raising the limit are, leave Satoshi out of it. From what we can gather, he thought it's a total non-issue, a matter of spam reduction.
Doesn't mean he's automatically right of course, but arguing
against a relaxation of the limit by appeal to the creator's authority just doesn't fly given the evidence.