I think the miscommunications comes from the black and whiteness of central vs decentral. There are currencies that more centralized and there are currencies that are less centralized.
Almost no currency systems, crypto or paper, have a unique point of failure. Even the original decentralized banks didn't have a unique point of failure. The truth is these banks fail for the exact same reason that some blockchains fail and that is through consensus.
Just look at historical examples of 51% attacks on blockchains and you can see a similar mechanism play out on traditional banks. If a certain number depositors agree (consensus) that the bank can't be trusted and they decide to withdraw then they can cause the bank to become insolvent. The safety for traditional banks is their reserve ratio and the Feds.
Historically, there were crowds that would rush the banks and withdraw everything all at the same time that caused failure. If everybody tomorrow refused to accept or trade Bitcoin it would also fail. It only has value through consensus. Blockchain technology is the modern way of improving consensus and building trust, but technology only goes so far.
There are already coins out there that have superior consensus protocols to Bitcoin, but have less value. In fact all of the coins have less dollar value per coin as well as total market cap. This shows that technological superiority alone doesn't equate to value in exchange for dollars. This implies that social consensus still holds higher weight for value.
Even Bitcoin itself has forked a few times. This implies that it wasn't perfect. The lack of consensus just wasn't enough to destroy the coin.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta