And if Satoshi's warning is true that in case of a successful fork he'll be forced to declare Bitcoin a failure (I would probably disassociate my name as well after a hostile takeover and admit defeat) then we have a real problem ahead of us.
This is completely false and a misinterpretation even of the fake Satoshi post. You're typing flat out propaganda.
The longest chain wins, and if the 2MB fork has something like 80%+ hash power, it is by definition YOU that are the hostile fork because you're in the minority of consensus, while the 2MB is the real chain. Having access to a github repo does not make you dictator of Bitcoin. Anyone is allowed to code up whatever changes they want and have miners vote for it. If they could not do this, Bitcoin would be centralized and worth 0.
You can type a million words, but all posts by you people can be summarized as "I believe 4 people with access to a certain github should be dictators of Bitcoin". Sorry, but no, that would make Bitcoin worth nothing if that was the case. World governments would LOVE centralized development as well. They would just take someone like Luke Jr and
A) Give him a large check or BFL miner to bribe him.
or
B) Beat the hell out of him till he does whatever they want or threaten to magically "discover" he's the new Silk Road mastermind.
Since pools come and go, centralized development is an even bigger attack vector than the pools are.