That's a very good question. IMO it seems pretty unlikely that bitcoin will undergo another fork any time soon, the people that were fine with forking went to BCH and then had many subsequent forks meanwhile the people that stayed on BTC either believed in small blocks or believed in the virtue of not forking.

I have heard some people are planning another UASF with respect to Taproot. Because miners are not agreeing with it.

Looks like taproot should lock in this cycle: https://taproot.watch/

I meant it in serious way (as serious as Bitcoin is, which is not much).

How can you legally define what "bitcoin" is, when that definition is not clear?

Most people will tell you "bitcoin is whatever is in the consensus in the last release of Bitcoin Core, based on the bitcoin github repository"... but that is still kind of finicky

Bitcoin to their credit does not change the consensus rules all that much (only via "soft forks"). But still.

Is code in bitcoin github repository what now decides what is legal tender in El Salvador?

Does El Salvador now need to agree with all the decisions Bitcoin Core team makes? What if they don't like Taproot?

A lot of the Bitcoin software around still doesn't allow bech addresses. Does all El Salvador citizens now need to support them? Even when the software doesn't? Is bech32 part of "bitcoin" as defined by El Salvador?