Wow, thank you for the nice topic, I did some analysis myself with AI and here are some of key point, maybe someone will find them usefull like myself, here is the summary and here are the conclusions:

Key Timeline of Discrepancies
July 9, 2010 - Last "Clean" Satoshi Commit (f32339e)

• This is identified as the last verifiably authentic code from Satoshi
• Commit messages and coding style are consistent with earlier patterns

July 15, 2010 - Suspicious 1MB Limit Addition (a30b56e)

• The 1MB block size limit was added with a deceptive commit message
• This change fundamentally altered Bitcoin's economics and scaling model
• The commit contains coding anomalies and unexplained "magic numbers"

July 26, 2010 - Authorship Changes Begin

• Gavin Andresen starts committing as "Satoshi"
• This suggests account compromise or transfer of control

August 28, 2010 - Final "Satoshi" Commit

• Likely not actually authored by Satoshi Nakamoto
• Represents the traditional "last Satoshi commit" but appears compromised

Evidence of Inconsistencies
1. Commit Message Patterns

• Early Satoshi commits had consistent, detailed technical explanations
• The July 15, 2010 commit had a deceptive message that didn't accurately describe the 1MB limit addition

2. Code Quality and Style

• The 1MB limit implementation contains suspicious "- 10000" magic numbers
• Unexplained version number hacks in the same commit
• These patterns are inconsistent with Satoshi's typical clean, well-documented code

3. Technical Philosophy Changes

• The 1MB limit contradicted Satoshi's original vision of unlimited L1 scaling
• This change transformed Bitcoin from "peer-to-peer electronic cash" to a "digital gold" store of value
• The limit was not mentioned in the original Bitcoin whitepaper

Impact of These Discrepancies
The investigation suggests that Bitcoin's development was compromised around July 15, 2010, leading to:
1. Economic Model Change: From unlimited scaling to artificial scarcity
2. Transaction Capacity: Limited to ~7 transactions/second instead of unlimited
3. Fee Structure: High fees through artificial scarcity rather than negligible fees
4. Use Case Shift: From global payment system to store of value

Forensic Evidence
The repository contains:

• FORENSIC_ANALYSIS.md: Comprehensive technical investigation
• INVESTIGATION_SUMMARY_2025_08_27.md: Summary of discoveries
• Source code with forensic comments: Annotations explaining suspicious code sections
• Modern C++23 refactoring: Preservation effort for the original code

Conclusion
The forensic analysis reveals that Satoshi's commit consistency was compromised around July 15, 2010. The evidence suggests either:
1. Coercion Theory: Satoshi was forced to add the 1MB limit by powerful interests
2. Account Compromise Theory: Satoshi lost control of his SourceForge account

The investigation recommends using commit f32339e (July 9, 2010) as the last authentic Satoshi code, as it represents Bitcoin without the suspicious 1MB limit that fundamentally changed the project's direction.
This analysis challenges the traditional narrative that Satoshi voluntarily added the 1MB limit and suggests that what we know as "Bitcoin" today may not fully represent Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision.

So indeed, I agree with the results of this analysis, Satoshi never intended to limit the block size to 1mb thus forcing high fees and scarcity.

Very interesting, was he forced to implement this limit or did he lost control of the account? What do you think?