Eh, you want to tell me how you know how many nodes "the authority" has? And how many there are?

The rules are already on my computer, no one can change them. If "the authority" changes his rules, he'll be ignored.

You can distribute software.

If you are thinking that there are some rules written somewhere other than in the code you are running then you are wrong.

I find it ironic that bitcoins are the first scarce commodity money created purely by fiat!

Does that make it fiat-commodity money?

...

If you've got some valuable arguments, show 'em,
you didnt so far.
yeah, "the authority", if you want to call him like that, wrote and published the code
and guess what?
you can READ it and compile it yourself, no need to trust anyone but yourself.
that's what open source is all about.

If it were microsofts code, you weren't able to read it, you'd have to trust (and pay) Bill, but you'r right, it's not.

The only "centralized authority" is the mathematics behind it.

It's the mathematics that makes it secure, not the "single source".  It just so happens that he's providing the source code, but anyone can write their own client which adheres to mathematics, and have it work on the network.

Why do people ask to change the rules?

Like changing the thasaction fee value? Isn't it fixed in the static rules already? So why do we still discuss things like that?
Only because Satoshi may change that at any moment, or after some delay when he decides to do that. Or he can't already? Correct me, please.

Why do people discuss the deflation feature, isn't it already a part of the fixed rules?

People propose to change the block generation period, after which the difficulty changes to accomodate to the overall CPU power.
Like changing it to 100 blocks, instead of ~2014 (I don't remember exactly, sorry).
Isn't it the part of the static rules yet? Someone still have the power to change it?
Someone proposing to change the 50 BTC award for "winning a block ", why don't anyone reacts with "Sorry, it is too late to change now" ?
Is there some other rules, that still discussed and may be changed in the future?

Am I wrong? Is Bitcoin really a final standard? Will it become a final standard?
Until then, Satoshi is the central authoritative provider of the rules of the system.
It is lie to say, that there is nothing like that in Bitcoin.
I do never said anything about Satoshi is going to do evil things with his power.
But he has the power. You cannot disprove that.

Satoshi have as much power as Google has over the internet, which is none.

The internet interpreted censorship as damage and route around it. The internet will also interpreted bad money as damage and route around it.

At this point, if someone released a new client with better features and that was backwards compatible with the old clients, I think people just might adopt it in favor of the old client ... even if it also accepted more rapid block creation or whatever.  Especially if this hypothetical client were to be released by Satoshi and put on the main page.  Once we get a fuller ecosystem with a whole bunch of clients (think how many clients implement Bittorrent) that will be hard - if not impossible - to do.

The official rules of bitcoin aren't written in stone, they're written into the clients.  As long as it is possible that 50%+ of the network could switch to a new client, it is possible that bitcoin could radically change.

True.

But let's imagine some fantastic, but still real situation.
Some evil power, like government, terrorists, mafia, you decide, catches some real person, one, who is used to be Satoshi, the originator of the idea.
They do evil things to him, feed him with drugs, beat him, etc... I wish it never really happens.
Imagine, they manage to get the access to his accounts, so they get the power to impersonate him on the web.
Imagine, they are well trained people, well supported and have access to all kind of expert knowledge.

Doesn't that power implies the power to propose new changes to the rules?
Doesn't that power implies the ability to modify the code, that will be used by every Bitcoin user later, after
everyone updates?

I don't know how it is possible, but can anyone please comment on why possessing that power does not
allow anyone to achieve one or all of these goals:
1) ruin the system
2) manipulate the system to harm it's users

Well, you may as well say it's just a paranoia, relax and take a rest.
But then I do not understand why it is not a paranoia to expect Bitcoin to sustain some large power attack.
Sorry, so far you have considered, that some large evil power plays by the same rules, by the rules of mathematics.
But if it is not forced to, why should it? It is cheaper to introduce it's own rules if it have a goal to undermine Bitcoin stability.
It will just use the people factor.
How sustainable the Bitcoin to that sort of attacks?

We have people here who review the code for differences each time an update is released.  I have begun doing this as of the last release.

There are two types of changes that such an impersonator could make:

1) Non-breaking change.  A change can only be non-breaking if it cooperates with existing clients.  It can only do this if it follows the mathematics of the system, because anything which changes the mathematics will be rejected by the other clients.  There is absolutely no threat from a breaking change, unless someone cracks the factoring problem and can solve the hashing problem instantaneously, in which case we have bigger issues to worry about.

2) Breaking change.  This changes the protocol or mathematics of the way the client operates.  Thus, other clients will refuse to work with newer clients.  This raises huge red flags.  This is the only kind of change which could potentially allow said power to compromise the system.  If someone releases a breaking change, I'm sure as hell going to read the code in order to find out what changed.  I'm sure there are many others who would do so as well.  Through open communication, word would spread of this, and releases from said power would no longer be trusted.