Most of the issues that we currently have should be solvable with a fork but some of them require miners approval so It sometimes these solutions are hard to implement , SegWit could be an example for this.
The thing that I personally don't understand is why the development is slow compared to other coins while I'm sure the funding for the developers isn't an issue and they could get the financial support of the community If they wanted to.

A fork isn't bad, it's actually a good thing most of the time (if done clean). Forks are a way of upgrading the protocol (e.g. increasing the blocksize -> allowing more transactions), the danger in hard forks is when they aren't done cleanly. This would mean that not every miner agrees on the fork, if this happens the network will split and we'll get two separate bitcoins, on that agrees with the fork, and one that doesn't. This happened to Ethereum after the DAO drama, the largest part of the network agreed on a fork that would return funds to the investors, but a smaller part (now "Ethereum Classic") didn't think it was the right thing to do and thus didn't agree on the fork.
Currently bitcoin has two forks that some people want to implement but not everyone does: SegWit, and Bitcoin Unlimited. The latter one would allow the blocksize to be increased and for there to be more transactions. Because not everyone agrees on one of the two yet, they haven't activated yet, which means the network won't be forked until a large part of the community agrees on a fork.

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

what if there was a formulae that NEVER gave priority unless someones funds were aged atleast a day or they added a CLTV maturity period of a day.
also where the more bloated their transaction was or the more they wanted to bypass the 1day delay to respend sooner would cost them dearly

EG where those genuine/moral users that want to spend more then once a day can save some costs using the voluntary side services such as LN.
while leaving malicious intentional spammers who would refuse to use LN as it doesnt serve their malicious intent, left waiting or paying alot

nope because they are dropped unless there is only a couple hours left.
also CLTV allows confirmation and then locks funds from being unspent after (like the block rewards 100 confirm maturity)

thus mempools wont fill up with tx's waiting a day.
people either pay up to get priority.
or
their come back later and rebroadcast when matured/aged
or
they use ln as a voluntary service.

Yes, i think it is possible to upgrade, the problem is how to upgrade, a soft fork (segwit) or a hard fork (B.U.). There is too much discussion between the two groups, and for now i think the only possibility to see consensus its a new third option.

Yes, Segregated Witness is the technology you want to know, it only requires a soft fork to enlarge the block size to 2MB, the opposite technology is bitcoin unlimited, which requires a hard fork, it will devalue the bitcoin price. But SegWit is only supported by 20% miners, we will wait for 50% to get SegWit soft fork.

Hugh? What are you saying here? Segwit does increase the block size and it will increase growth. A hard fork is the worst option we could take. The difficulty has nothing to do with SegWit. Why would mining be more profitable for large scale miners, than small miners?

Miners actually supports bigger blocks and the reason for the confirmation delays is the spam attacks. ^hmmmmmm^

A this point I refuse to see that bitcoin can be upgraded, not with the current standards and requirement of consensus of 95%.

There is too much hidden interests going on behind the scenes. It seems that every group has its own agenda and plans and tries to take over bitcoin.

So unless community will face imminent danger i.e. bitcoin network collapse, ultra high fees for every tx or persisting spam attack disrupting functionality of BTC, nothing will change.