Vitalik indeed had incidence, and you're correct that Ethereum is more centralized than Bitcoin. However, for me that is only a gradual difference in this case. The power of someone to change the algorithm in a fork situation is higher if this person has also "social power" like in the case of Vitalik, but an entitiy without that influence with even more money could achieve the same result. The question is how much more money you'd need to equal that "social power".

In addition, we're witnessing already now that nation-states try to frame Bitcoin as an investment asset downplaying crucial features like censorship resistance and privacy. This means that the group listening to this framing and agreeing could have some social influence too.

The "national reserve" managers are also Bitcoin users. And if they own more Bitcoins than retailers, then they probably will have also more power. Take into account that big corporations' coins (Saylor and Cia.) will probably not fight for privacy. They will align with the likely winner.

Still, the "retailer's UASF" could win -- if, and only if, the retailers are overwhelmingly in the pro privacy camp. If they're divided (40:60 would not be enough, I think) then it becomes complicated.
 
I would normally be still optimistic. But what's a bit scary to me is that I'm seeing more and more posts which question privacy measures for Bitcoin, like CoinJoins. See this thread as a recent example. Of course, the thread didn't get any merits, and was fiercely criticised, but I see such posts much more often now than a couple of years ago when only trolls complained about "criminals using Bitcoin". And on platforms like X, where people like ZachXBT have actively criticised privacy-preserving crypto services, and where most retailers are, the "privacy doesn't matter" camp is probably much bigger.

I interpret that you mean that even the nation states would not risk losing the value of their reserves for that conflict and would thus not actively interfere in the fork debate. This depends largely how controversial a change is, and if a value loss has to be feared. If there's for example a 50:50 situation among "retail" users, then the chance for the pro-FATF camp to win the conflict without major losses are quite good, just because retailers are the least powerful users, unfortunately.

(I also disagree a bit with your figures about a possible Bitcoin market cap if BTC is used as a widespread reserve currency. I think it would be more aligned with current gold's valuation, not 5-10 times higher. Gold is already a major reserve asset, and in addition has industrial and decorative use. I think a "gold flippening" -- BTC market cap > value of all gold in the world --- can happen but gold would then probably crash.)

My personal conclusion of this debate here until now is that it is possible that Bitcoin can repel a "FATF cartel attack", but for this, the users must be concientized about it's core values. If these values persist, then even big strategic reserves will perhaps not be that scary. But for the current landscape, where the censorship resistance aspect is downplayed and criticised not only by nation-states but also by some retail users groups, I'm not so optimistic.

BTW: For me, necroposting is totally okay as long as it's a substantial post, and that's the case here imo.

Vitalik indeed had incidence, and you're correct that Ethereum is more centralized than Bitcoin. However, for me that is only a gradual difference in this case. The power of someone to change the algorithm in a fork situation is higher if this person has also "social power" like in the case of Vitalik, but an entitiy without that influence with even more money could achieve the same result. The question is how much more money you'd need to equal that "social power".

In addition, we're witnessing already now that nation-states try to frame Bitcoin as an investment asset downplaying crucial features like censorship resistance and privacy.

The "national reserve" managers are also Bitcoin users. And if they own more Bitcoins than retailers, then they probably will have also more power. Take into account that big corporations' coins (Saylor and Cia.) will probably not fight for privacy. They will align with the likely winner.

Still, the "retailer's UASF" could win -- if, and only if, the retailers are overwhelmingly in the pro privacy camp. If they're divided (40:60 would not be enough, I think) then it becomes complicated.
 
I would normally be still optimistic. But what's a bit scary to me is that I'm seeing more and more posts which question privacy measures for Bitcoin, like CoinJoins. See this thread as a recent example. Of course, the thread didn't get any merits, and was fiercely criticised, but I see such posts much more often now than a couple of years ago when only trolls complained about "criminals using Bitcoin".

I interpret that you mean that even the nation states would not risk losing the value of their reserves for that conflict and would thus not actively interfere in the fork debate. This depends largely how controversial a change is, and if a value loss has to be feared. If there's for example a 50:50 situation among "retail" users, then the chance for the pro-FATF camp to win the conflict without major losses are quite good, just because retailers are the least powerful users, unfortunately.

(I also disagree a bit with your figures about a possible Bitcoin market cap if BTC is used as a widespread reserve currency. I think it would be more aligned with current gold's valuation, not 5-10 times higher. Gold is already a major reserve asset, and in addition has industrial and decorative use. I think a "gold flippening" -- BTC market cap > value of all gold in the world --- can happen but gold would then probably crash.)

My personal conclusion of this debate here until now is that it is possible that Bitcoin can repel a "FATF cartel attack", but for this, the users must be concientized about it's core values. If these values persist, then even big strategic reserves will perhaps not be that scary. But for the current landscape, where the censorship resistance aspect is downplayed and criticised not only by nation-states but also by some retail users groups, I'm not so optimistic.

BTW: For me, necroposting is totally okay as long as it's a substantial post, and that's the case here imo.