Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.
You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for
no protocol-determined block limit.
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.
I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes.
I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They
verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".
That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice.
TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed
by the users, we will get them.
The last point you've made was the nail in the coffin regarding my decision to side with Bitcoin. There's too much money involved to allow Bitcoin to die due to technical issues.