If I am off I don't think its that far. I am not so far off that you cant bother to write a few lines to prove out a single contradiction but you write paragraphs about just the fact its ignorant.

I will present you supporting evidence of what I said right from Satoshi's paper. You tell me where this contradicts my interpretation or what other info I am missing that somehow fundamentally changes what I said - I dont want to be blinded by my own "superiority" but without someone straight up pointing it out - i will be so I need you to help with that - here we go:

Decision Making is described in section 4: "Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains."

Here is an interesting use of the word "honest" - which in English is the opposite of "deceiving" but in many languages and in some ways English also - it means "sincere" as in its performing duties in the best interest of the blockchain. Admittedly , without knowing Satoshi's language of origin, this can be a blurred interpretation. Lets just assume it means nodes/chains which have the aim to achieve and perpetuate the blockchain to be the longest/useful/valuable

Originally in the paper nodes were both miners and validators (or just the word node was used generically as a networking term of any element of the network). As you can see in section 5, the word node is used interchangeably for network nodes which find blocks and perform proof-of-work and nodes which accept the blocks by validating the transactions and express acceptance by adding the block to the chain.

Quote: "1)New transactions are broadcast to all nodes. 2)Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3)Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block. 4)When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes. 5)Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent. 6)Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash."

Finally - incentive is described: Quotes: "By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block."

And

"The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth"

This seems by design, the reward of the miner is the first transaction of the block - regardless of how big it is. The output of blocks over time is fixed, so whether there is small or large blocks, the reward for the miner is the same.

Likewise, in the long run the largerst reward for miners is to have the blockchain succeed and be the most useful, since then their reward will be more valuable - more users = more value.

As more users add more value in the system through acceptance and use of it, each of the rewarded bitcoins grows in value.

Given how much bitcoin has grown - doubling every few months, why the hell would any miner try to fuck over the system to make some small short term gains and screw everyone over by making bitcoin less usable. It makes no sense - especially since they get bitcoins - but if people don't use it the price drops and all their effort is lost anyway. Its a suicidal perspective.

Now consider - what motives are there to stubbornly refuse to let bitcoin be more efficient on the core blockchain and push people toward a 2nd layer - which has completely different rules and implications on users and the cryptocurrency economy? Who gains then? It seems to me, it creates yet another system for centralized payment processing where big money players can squeeze out some percentage fees for the service of performing 3rd party transaction processing - many people simply feel the whole point of bitcoin was to eliminate the need for 3rd parties.