I do not see that core's has any tenable objection to 2X.
[1] Tech has moved on, 2mb is not that big, HD space and bandwidth are much cheaper
2x is a "physical" blocksize increase to 4-6MB, not just 2MB. Regular SegWit already leads to 2-3MB blocks.
[2] BCH has proved you can go bigger blocks and have significant value network, and BCH network has not collapsed.
BCH has barely any blocks that are larger than 50k because there are hardly any transactions being made, so it hasn't proven anything so far.
[3] It provides choice as to on chain or of chain transactions
Regular SegWit does as well.
[4] there is no such thing as spam in the network, but I will use the word "spam" as shorthand for transactions person A does not like.
Spam is defined as transactions that are made explicitely for the purpose of clogging up the network, akin to DDoS requests. While to my knowledge there's little "hard" proof that spam transaction exists, they are not simply "transactions person A does not like."
[5] If you say go 8 times the blocksize and 1/2 the price for fees it will be 4 times more costly to "spam" a block while providing much lower fees. Given there are limited bitcoins, the spammer will run out of BTC to spam.
Agreed.
I welcome any discussion as why I am in error, but as it stand to not 2x then a few years later 4x and so on, seem in bad faith by core. It forces the question cui bono?
Problem being, that this approach would require a hardfork any time a block size increase takes place. While it went fairly OK with BCH, a hardfork is always a risky endeavour.