[josaka]

True, but there's value in reducing the number of parties you must trust to get something done. It's easy to imagine that, at the margin, there are a subset of collective action problems that will get solved if you can reduce the number of parties that must be trusted. Worrying about the need to sue 3 people has to be better than worrying about the need to sue 6.

[WorldMaker]

If that were the case, then decentralization would be the explicit opposite: instead of trusting a central party you've got N machines owned by M parties involved, most of whom you couldn't take to court if you wanted if a "smart contract" was misinvoked or a blockchain transaction was screwed up. Sure, most chains require attacks to be 51% or more collusion, but if a 51% attack happened, how many third parties did you trust that you probably can't sue? Millions of machines with thousands of owners? That is by far the opposite of "trust as few parties as possible".