They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.
How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)
Satoshi's vision was that eventually, when the network gets large, only miners need to run full nodes. Ordinary users can use SPV clients.
As the network gets larger, running a full node will become more expensive, but please realize that:
A) part of that cost will be offset by the natural decline in processing and bandwidth costs.
and...
B) By that time, Bitcoin network will be so big that it will still be very decentralized even if the cost barriers to mining increase.
You can have a different opinion than Satoshi, but I find it very suspicious that those who do aren't forthright about it.
Forget about "satoshis" vision and focus on the facts.
Fact: If you raise the blocksize up to a point where people can't run their own nodes, you cannot call it a peer to peer network anymore.
No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.
Fact: Technology is not going to catch up with the huge blocksizes we would need, not in terms of storage and not in terms of bandwith. Mainstream level transaction onchain will always be ahead of the curve when it comes to running full validating nodes, which means mainstream level transactions are impossible onchain without a centralized network where corporations run the nodes.
If satoshi wanted datacenters to run full nodes then he was objectively wrong in calling his project a peer to peer cash network because it's not peer to peer and certainly not cash.