Bitcoin operates on voluntary consensus, meaning users, miners, and node operators independently choose which version of the protocol to run. This decentralized decision-making process ensures that no single entity has control over the network.

In cases of significant disagreement, this can result in a hard fork, splitting the blockchain into two versions (e.g., Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold). Alternatively, a soft fork occurs when an update is introduced and broadly accepted, maintaining compatibility without a chain split.

If large entities conspired to push a specific code update—one that enabled a fundamental change (let’s call it XYZ)—they might attempt to influence the ecosystem through coordinated efforts. This could include leveraging companies, influencers, core developers, and deploying extensive resources like marketing campaigns, think tanks, and public relations strategies.

The XYZ change, however, might not align with Bitcoin's core principles of being permissionless, immutable, decentralized, and secure as global peer-to-peer money. Instead, it could lead to greater "financialization" that undermines its original purpose.

As you noted, there may already have been attempts or precursors to such efforts. 👀

Ultimately, it is the rebels, cypherpunks, economics enthusiasts, and super-shadowy hacktivists who will continue to champion the true vision of what Bitcoin is meant to be, represent, and stand for.