That sounds like two opposites? How can there be a change of on-chain capacity without changing constants in code or reducing security? I actually just don't understand what this is getting at here, but would like an explanation.
You'll have to ask who wrote it for an explanation, and since he signed a bunch of BTC addresses from 2009, maybe it's Satoshi - it seemed appropriate to me in answer to your question. It is logical that Bitcoin must be developed and upgraded, but the emphasis is on the fact that it must retain its essence, that is, there should not be some radical changes like what people who did some of their visions of Bitcoin did. All of this is written in the context of proving that CW (Faketoshi) is not Satoshi.