Owners of coins have absolutely no control over bitcoin. They can't "vote" with their coins for any change in the protocol. Miners can, but to a very small degree. The real control lies in the hands of those who hold keys to Bitcoin GitHub repository, bitcoin.org web site and /r/Bitcoin subreddit. They can do whatever they want - increase block size, change mining algorithm, increase Bitcoin supply etc.
> They can do whatever they want - increase block size, change mining algorithm, increase Bitcoin supply etc.
I won't deny that they do hold some power, but I don't think it is as complete as you claim. There is in effect counter-powers to the devs: miners and users.
Imagine a scenario where the guys who have commit access tot the repo decided to change the block size via a hard fork (much like what happened with bitcoin cash).
The next day, there would be a new github repo with the unforked original code, and there would be two Bitcoins sharing a common history up until the fork.
Some miners would switch to the new fork, some would stay on the original one.
Much like what happened with bcash, there would quickly be people selling the fork they don't believe in and buying the one they like.
Before long, the users (and the miners) would essentially do what amounts to a vote (some with mining power, others with buying and selling), and we would end up in a situation like the one we have today: BTC at $66000, BCASH at $600.
So, some power (like with the taproot upgrade, which ended up having actual consensus with miners and did not create a revolution with the users), not absolute power to decide what Bitcoin is and isn't.
This is where the subreddit part comes along. You just ban all users disagreeing with your intended change and voila - you have 100% popular support for your change.
