[__MatrixMan__]

I agree that there's a bit of hippocracy around the way crypto communities claim that they're trustless until something goes terribly wrong, at which point various key people in those comminutes are trusted to author a hard fork that will undo the damage.

But hippocracy aside, I still think it's a better system than the one you find in fiat currencies. At least in the crypto case the people in the trusted position have something to lose--if they behave badly, people will lose faith in the currency and go elsewhere. It doesn't take much to move your assets between cryptos. If you control enough hashpower (assuming POW) or coin (assuming POS) you could easily lose it all overnight if you support a malicious fork.

In a fiat currency there's way more friction keeping people entrenched. This means that the banks can behave badly and still bet on a majority of their users sticking with their platform.

Besides, Bitcoin just proved the concept. If you don't accept that its fork mechanism has merit as is then I hope you can at least admit that there could be a system that is more effective than our current bureaucratic mess. And whatever that system is, it seems likely that one of the fledgling next-gen cryptos will find a way to make it happen.

I was reading about decred the other day, for instance. Voting on potential forks and then healing the partial schism caused by the vote is baked into their protocol. Apart from the necessary bit about trusting other stakeholders to vote reasonably, I think that in a scenario like that the trust placed directly in the protocol is not insignificant.