last time I've checked Satoshi himself explicitly state that max block size limit was a temporary band aid to avoid a certain type DoS attack to the bitcoin network, just for the record.
For the record, I've never disputed the origin of the 1mb max block size, only the desirability of increasing it twenty fold before we know what trade-offs are entailed in the forms of optimization pressure, miner/pool/fee incentives, centralization, UXTO bloat, etc.
I'd wager the majority of the core devs, who at this time also oppose 20mb blocks, are likewise completely aware of the 1mb cap's origin. I guess it's news to you, so you think nobody else knew either and you need to tell us all the good news.
Please note Satoshi chose to include in the blockchain a newspaper quote from an article about bailouts for TBTF banks, instead of one from an article about excessive bank, ATM, or credit card fees.
Bitcoin is revolution and financial freedom, not a nifty gadget to put in retail points of sale. If a guy in Venezuala (or Florida) can't be his own private bank by running a full node over TOR on a slow 5mb DSL line, this experiment has failed.
Satoshi did not create Bitcoin because he was mad about the 50 cent credit/debit surcharge on his iced Americano, and you can't kill/obsolete the BIS with some stupid VC micropayment daydream internet-of-bullshit Visa-wannabe transaction network.
And there is this:
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.
If we subsidize blockchain bloat, we'll get more of it.
That most precious resource should be optimized, not diluted.
The sooner you Monopolist Maximalists get over the fact that GavinCoin doesn't have the required 80% consensus, the better.
The max doesn't have to stay 1mb forever, but now is not the time to potentially undermine the diffuse/defensible/resilient nature that provides BTC's antifragilty.