No, far from it, as evidenced by the opinions of the undersigners on where to take the project from the start. And while labelling dissenting opinions trolls ma

No, far from it, as evidenced by the opinions of the undersigners on where to take the project from the start. And while labelling dissenting opinions trolls may make for convenient discourse, it does not help with understanding the underlying engineering. Note that the most common reason among the former undersigners for withdrawing support was the lack of replay protection (which only underscores the lack of consensus around some fundamental design decisions among the signers). To anyone familiar with post segregated witness Bitcoin an increase in base block size could be done in a number of ways. The weights for data structures could be changed, but so could the weight limit. What would be reasonable if backwards compatibility is no concern is use the same multiplier for all types of signatures, thereby removing the so called segwit discount, but this turned out not to be the design chosen. Like most people interested in Bitcoin, I only followed the NYA at a distance and have no more information than anyone else in this space, but I do know some people working with a company that took part of the agreement. I do not think there was some secret cabal behind the agreement, which some people seems to believe, but I also think that there were conflicting goals involved.