Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....
Claiming?
What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?
There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".
That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.
As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.
These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.
I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.