[nmlnn]

> can be trivially changed if certain people decide that it should

This is simply not the case - see 2017 bitcoin cash fork or Segwit2X push. At the end of the day money is a human invention, meant to facilitate value exchange between humans. So it requires consensus between the users of the money, if some fraction want to change the rules they are free to.

We went for something we found in nature with properties that were pretty good for that, but with some downsides (not absolutely scarce, difficult to transport, easy to steal) to something created specifically for the purpose.

[root_axis]

It can be trivially changed in the sense that it's a computer program that simulates money. No amount of consensus can increase the gold supply.

[nmlnn]

Technological advances can increase the gold supply. Asteroid mining, extracting it from sea water, mining lower quality deposits, etc.

There still has to be consensus on using gold as money, if there isn't it will lose its monetary premium to something that has better monetary properties.

[modeless]

> There still has to be consensus on using gold as money

This is a great point. The choice to value gold as currency over other rare metals is 'a cultural property of the community' and yet not 'trivial' to change, just as Bitcoin's consensus isn't.