I'm disappointed. Jbreher is like the smartest of you apes and this was a pretty feeble attempt at trying to portray bitcoin as having traits of money equal or better than metals:
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve.
No, it does not. Money is supposed to be boring - it's not supposed to "evolve" from a metal bar into a tarantula when you look away to the TV then back to it. If it evolves it's not fungible, and what the hell is the molding force causing this evolution? It's definitely not a nash equilibrium. There would always be holdouts or people who want to evolve differently, and then the entire thing is just complete arbitrary nonsense of what cutoff level you set for voting. That's mob rule, not anti-fragile.
Voting doesn't belong in money. Voting is nothing but an attack vector. It's like that sig you sometimes see that says "democracy is the original 51% attack". A fork isn't an upgrade, it's an attack sanctioned by mob rule. You have mob rule of the proletariat (users) vs oligarchy of capital owners (mining cartel). The second these two factions have to come to the table against one another you probably just end up with a rough consensus attack and the whole thing blows up anyway because their interests are not aligned whatsoever.
If miners believe it's required to add inflation to bitcoin to fix the security model (which it probably is), then they would probably do something like that, while a giant portion of users wouldn't want their coins inflated and would switch to something completely different like proof of stake. There is no fungibility, consistency, or anti-fragility in any of this.