We don't disagree. Many people act like the consensus algorithm is somehow magically obviating the need for a consensus among humans. One must inherently trust that, if one is to use something like Bitcoin.

Functionally, as long as the consensus is to install the latest version of Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Core's maintainers control Bitcoin.

The whitepaper claims that Bitcoin removes the need for a trusted third-party to transactions. If you consider mining pools to be "a party", that claim isn't strictly true: on several occasions, one mining pool has held 51% hash power (e.g. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184427-one-bitcoin-group... is a notable example; before that, pools normally kept their hashing power below 30% voluntarily), so in reality, you're trusting all sufficiently-wealthy parties not to do that. However, the whitepaper doesn't make the widely-believed stronger claim about magical trustlessness.

The direct counter-evidence against Craig's claimed key ownership are the facts that many of his claimed addresses signed that he was a fraud, that Wizsec showed that the 1feex address was actually stolen MtGox funds (and nothing to with Craig at all,) the court records of Klein v. Wright showing he completely made up the list of claimed addresses by instructing Shadders (a shoddy programmer from nChain) to construct the list entirely algorithmically from broken precepts.

So no, it wasn't just "one" key. It was dozens.

(Lots of addresses that Craig claimed were his, signing that Wright is a fraud): https://craigwright.lol/

(An outline of why the 1feex are entirely NOT Wright's Bitcoins): https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoi... https://blog.wizsec.jp/2020/06/mtgox-march-2011-theft.html

(An ultra-early miner, maybe the second miner, signing his own early blocks proving they aren't Craig's, either): https://twitter.com/druidian/status/1447833107143483393

You are doing a slippery thing here by claiming that your directly-falsifiable statement about Bitcoin Cash being a "precedent" where "developers control the funds"—while now in the above statement claiming that this was actually in regards to Satoshi likely not stepping up to defend his own key ownership—is somehow related.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, or else you could show me even a single instance where Bitcoin Cash moved funds absent its owner's key signature—which is entirely what this entire thing is about, namely a court case where Wright is suing to attempt to force a backdoor into Bitcoin which would move funds specifically to his possession without a key owner's signature (or a coinbase pay.)

Finally: reasons why you don't have any idea what you're talking about, itemized:

1) You didn't know that Bitcoin Cash never moved funds without a coinbase payout or a key owner's signature but asserted it did.

2) You didn't know about the direct evidence of Craig's claimed keys being owned by other people.

3) You don't know how hard forks work because you think that hard forks can happen gradually and that pressure from minor buy-in can push it to adoption.

Aside from the DAO (which is irrelevant because Ethereum is a scam) you haven't had a very good batting average in general, and for Bitcoin, it's atrocious.