That happens a lot when you start looking at the technical details of bitcoin.

The root of the problem in this discussion is that it isn't clear what the definition of the word "bitcoin" is.

Meni presents the idea that if enough people agree to change the definition of the word "bitcoin", then bitcoin becomes the new thing.

I present the idea that a thing is what it is, regardless of what people choose to call it.

This is really a philosophical debate, and until you describe what side of that debate you are on, it becomes difficult to agree on an answer.

As an example:

There is an object in my front yard that all english speaking people agree to call an "oak tree".  You pose the question, "on an agreement with all parties involved, is there a chance an oak tree could fly on its own accord?"

I assume you are talking about the object currently known as an "oak tree" (regardless of what people choose to call it in the future).  So I state, "No.  That object can't fly on its own accord.  Any object that flys on its own accord isn't that object, even if the majority of people choose to call some other object that flys on its own accord an "oak tree".

Meni states, "If a large enough majority of people look at some other object that flies on its own accord, and agree to call it an "oak tree", then an "oak tree" can fly on its own accord, and the few people who still call that old object an "oak tree" will be using an outdated unsupported usage of the words "oak tree".

As you can see, we are both right.  You have to decide if you are talking about the word "bitcoin", or the concept that is currently described with the word "bitcoin".  The current concept can't be changed, it will always be what it is (just like an oak tree will always be what it is regardless of how else those words are used).  However, people could create a new concept and agree to re-use the name "bitcoin" for that new concept.