If someday Roger Ver publicly announces he supports Segwit? Then I would say he saw the light. Welcome back Mr. Ver. 
then you would be changing your whole ideology! Quote
You support the group behind the NYA which tried to undermine the community? Ok, that's no problem for me, it failed at any rate.
i don't support any groups, i support proposals. if we start supporting "groups" then we are effectively centralizing bitcoin to that group. it doesn't matter who they are and what they have done so far. you have to check the code itself.i don't claim to be an expert though. but with little knowledge that i have i checked out different proposals regardless of who started them. to my understanding the hard fork to 8 MB (BCH) was the worst and SegWit fork was the best although it has its own downsides too.
additionally i do believe that a hard fork to increase the block size itself is requires. we may not need it now, as i said hopefully we get other things such as Schnorr before that but eventually it needs to happen.
Quote
But let's get back on the conspiracy theory of Gavin, Faketosi, and Mike Hearn's push for big blocks. Is there a probability that their objective was to undermine Bitcoin's decentralization?
i agree the possibility exists but my whole point is that you should not reject or accept any proposal based on who proposed it. if you start doing it then YOU are centralizing bitcoin to that group. in other words you should do:- accept SegWit if you understand the implications of it, not because core team proposed it
- reject hard fork to X MB blocks if you understand the implications of it not because people you named here were pushing for it.