[Klinky]

> take unfounded trust away from individual organisations and governments, and instead puts that trust in maths and the collective

If by "collective" you mean a tiny portion of the community that are core developers, megaminers, megapools, exchanges and whales, uhh, then sure, but that doesn't seem much different than fiat. There is still an elite minority in control.

[dastx]

Sure, but not everyone can foresee everything. Email was meant to be a decentralised, self-hosted service, yet here we are, gmail, outlook have the majority of users.

In addition to that, most of those megaminers, and megapools, can't do much without working with a large chunk of other miners. Without it, the worse they can do is not fulfill individual transactions (which other miners can continue to accept).

Just because a minority is hoarding bitcoin, does not make bitcoin's core issue invalid, that is, don't trust financial institutions or governments.

Bitcoin never claimed to solve the issues that are at the core of monetary systems (greed, corruption etc). It solves the issue of trust. I don't have to trust a financial institutions or government to tell me how much money I own. Nor is there a government or bank that can freeze my account because I've been naughty (or, in certain cases, because the government deems you naughty because of $ideology). That's what bitcoin solves. Not the issues that are core to monetary systems. Issues that mostly come from human psyche.

[Klinky]

>It solves the issue of trust.

No it does not. There are already complaints of vested interests holding back technological advances to BTC. Nothing technically prevents vested interests from colluding to fork the chain ala the ETH DAO scandal. It's not a minority hoarding bitcoin, it's minority controlling bitcoin. You could say you haven't seen enough evidence of this being a problem, but then BTC hasn't been around for centuries or nor does it run a global economy at scale yet.