It's hard not to find it at least a little interesting that the many of the same people that so viciously attacked Gavin Andresen for merely repeating and working on what Satoshi had said about scaling for years, are now completely fine with "scaling" through various other networks where the Bitcoins themselves are not ever actually used directly — merely pegged — and the tiny ammount of blockspace made available only functions as a form of a fractional reserve basis for these external transactions that will still have to be settled at some point. (Yes, the capacity of the now slightly altered chain of signatures might continue to be increased slowly over time, but most people simply do not care that much if it is anymore because they don't see Bitcoin as primarily money or not necessarily as "cash" style digital coins that should be able to be passed directly from one person to the next)

Lightning Network is a wonderful invention, but it's very different from Bitcoin qua the Bitcoin design and what Satoshi actually championed. He never suggested that payment channels should in any sense replace on chain scaling, as I often see mistakenly said by newcomers now. Bakkt is undoubtedly also a great innovation, but it is arguable even worse from a security and non-trust standpoint.

It needs to be said that Satoshi (and I with him) considered the design "completely decentralized" from day one, even as he was arguably the first 51+% miner and running many instances of the software before he had even implemented multi-core support. He repeatedly explained why having only a few, such as 3-4 large anonymous nodes, worked fine and would not lead to censorship because of the open nature of the network. So it is quite bizarre to see people go to such lengths to discredit his ideas as to suggest that "Satoshi didn't foresee ASICs/pools/covert boost mining" etc.

I mean it's all there in the emails and the forum posts. This information is not unavailable, only hardly ever researched or referenced for any other reason than to make political points (even when it's said not to be the case) or to drive further speculation.