and even if some of those changes do occur over time, as you mentioned with your examples, it does not mean that there is not going to be resistance to various more extreme attempts, such as attempts to hardfork at lower consensus levels.
It's entirely up to those who choose to run the code what level of support they're willing to accept before taking the plunge. Nothin' you can do to stop 'em, but you don't have to join 'em. And still not a change in governance if they can form the longest chain and have sufficient node support and economic activity to propagate that chain. Again, that's just how Bitcoin works.
There is not only ONE way that things can turn out, so get off of your lecturing about how bitcoin works high horse. Do you really know what is going to happen?
You are correct that people can do whatever the fuck they want and to see whether others follow them, and they can do that with 10% or 50% or 80% ... Of course. I can also chose whether or not to follow. I am not locked in. There are a lot of people who can chose what to do. Do you know what they are going to do? I doubt it. All we have are buckets of probabilities and we can attempt to make approximations of outcomes based on what we perceive to be the various options and how we believe various actors will act.
OMFG learn to read, already. Where did I say that was the only way it could play out? I said
if it happens, it's
not a change of governance. If or whether it happens with 99% support or 51% support, longest chain wins if it has sufficient nodes and tx. How is that simple concept so hard for you to wrap your head around? I even said you don't have to follow along, so I can't understand why you're repeating my same point back to me like some brain damaged parrot.
I doubt that any kind of analogy of bitcoin value to water in buckets is fitting to crypto, financial, political and/or social competition and/or cooperation concepts.
Also, you have now asserted that forking is consensual.
Sure there are not going to be very many issues if a change is consensual, so if you assume some matter is consensual then you are changing the parameters of reality by assuming the very thing that it is in contention -- namely how is consensual is defined and at what threshold levels.
In other words, a contentious hardfork is problematic, and a consensual hardfork is not problematic, and if you assume the hardfork to be consensual, then of course it is not problematic and you win.
It seems to me that you are assuming facts that are not yet in evidence because we still don't know what miners and nodes are going to do because some software is still being developed and they don't have the software to run to show what they are doing in order to verify whether a matter is contentious or not and what consensus levels are being reached for the various options that are going to be available.
Since analogies only seem to cause you to get even more lost on what the point actually is, I won't bother in future. I'm not saying all forks are consensual, again, learn to read. I'm saying that in the ideal event of a consensual fork, there's no shift in the balance of power or the consensus mechanism. I'm
also saying that in the event of a contentious fork, that could cause an imbalance and you might actually have a valid point (yay for you). Because if some of the users securing the chain choose to fork away, that might well have a bearing on subsequent forks being easier to achieve if there are less voices of dissent.
So if you're quite finished grabbing the wrong end of the stick and then trying to stab me with it, I suggest we just agree to disagree.