Anyhow, it also seems Gavin is on the edge here with this whole thing, putting his legitimacy and authority as Bitcoin lead dev at risk if people in the end refuses to cope with the forked software.
Interesting times..
..., 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.
There is no doubt that when Satoshi handed his role over to Gavin he demonstrated himself to be a very astute judge of character and ability. Gavin is continuing solidly with the vision that Satoshi had for his project.
I have admiration for Peter Todd's crypocurrency development skills, but was very disappointed when he published his naive, noobie-fooling video. Greg Maxwell takes a thoughtful, conservative and measured approach, but I really wish he would make it clear whether he thinks Bitcoin should at least scale in line with the general level of improvement in computing technology for high-end home users.