"We don't need Bitcoin because almost nobody uses it"

Is there any logic to this statement?

Just because something is not used by a majority does not mean that it is not necessary. It is often related to the elements raised by @k00b:

They will always be able to have it: self-custody wallets are not always available to everyone in all places or are difficult to use in some of them.

They will be able to have it cheaper: In many cases having access to self-custody can be expensive for some. Let's think about merchants who use the Lightning network, opening a channel is not always cheap, so they use the custody option.

They will be able to have it more easily: the technical aspect of having self-custody and the improvement in security can be impediments to using it More people who know will have it: not always people have knowledge about the existence of this option.

My answers

Do you agree with the tweet? Not at all

What minority size are requests for consensus change dismissible? I have no answer.

Can we consider something unnecessary because of the size of the group that wants it in advance, before such desires are easy and always possible to satisfy? Not always. All elements must be evaluated, the ease and possibility of satisfying a desire should not be the elements of greatest weight in determining whether something is necessary or not; because many advances would not have been developed