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.
'Consent' of the users is always required. If the users will not accept what the miners are creating, they can abandon that chain. For better or for worse, this is the exact balance of power that was bequeathed to us by satoshi's design. Indeed, it is still the only check users have to this day, whether BTC, BCH, or SV. And the number of fully-validating non-mining wallet clients has fuck-all to do with this balance of power.
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.
Yes, and if they detect blocks that they refuse to accept, their only power is to ostracize themselves from the network that accepts that chain.
That does not affect the network in the slightest. Sure, if some other chian is being built, they can be configured to follow that other chain. But that is their only option. They by definition cannot build the chain they desire.
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".
This I would agree with whole-heartedly. But my ability to verify the chain is completely independent of any outside influence. There is no barrier for me to operate in such a trustless manner.
As long as there is no prescribed barrier to such trustless operation, the network is as decentralized as it need be.
That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance.
Perhaps because you do not yet see that your desired implementation details do not support the objectives you claim to espouse.