Why not? Its rules of operation are merely those that are agreed upon by a loose coalition of people. Those people decide to change the rules arbitrarily, viz. hard forks.
OK, if you want to argue that bitcoin doesn't fit a specific dictionary definition then congratulations, you have won the argument!
But that is not my point. Bitcoin supporters don't support bitcoin because the alternative is "government-issued currency that is not backed by a commodity such as gold". They support bitcoin because the "fiat" alternative has certain consequences in the real world such as being subject to the arbitrary whims of a government.
Yet the existence of hard forks shows that bitcoin is subject to the arbitrary whims of a nebulous group of people. Therefore I don't see why it avoids the downsides (as they see it) of fiat currency.
No, not at all there was no argument. Bitcoin isn't fiat. Thats a fact not an argument. You specifically asked why, so I gave you the reason. Words have meanings. We use fiat currency as a term specifically to exclude cryptos and other money-like assets like gold or diamonds. This is not debatable.
If you want to says something else regard some other statements then you need to reply to the correct message so the author can see it. The whole rest of your message makes no sense as a reply to my answer.
