Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.
We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.
Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.
Once again you ruin your analysis by conflating morality and opportunity cost. Morality is your hammer and everything is a nail. Humans aren't doing everything they do because they are weak. They are acting rational from an opportunity cost analysis. Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of rational localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational. Morality is not a solution, because it is never absolute truth and is always manipulable as well. Gold is an inferior measure of value because for example regional distribution/control of mines is not equitable or non-manipulable (well
everything fungible is manipulable as I explained in my recent mini-essay). I explained in that essay that I am working on a solution that will supercede morals and absolute values.
You are correct that voting would make Bitcoin another fiat system. But it isn't because humans are weak. It is because of the economics of voting. See my prior post.
So you are saying my conclusions are correct but the methodology to reach it is flawed.
Ok that is possible I suppose. Another possibility is that I am reaching correct conclusions because my methodology is sound.
What appears rational for a limited frame of reference may not be from a more lofty perspective.
From the perspective of the cell it appears rational (in the short run) to grow uncontrollably. From the perspective of the organism this is not an ideal situation. From the perspective of the the individual it appears rational to kill tribesmen who compete with him for community resources. From the perspective of the tribe things look different. This line of thought extrapolates forward as one achieves higher levels of cooperation.
Choosing something that is only rational from a limited frame of reference but not in the larger picture is ultimately not rational behaviour it is error either made from ignorance or purposeful vice. We rarely care, plan, or sacrifice for any outcome that occurs outside of the immediate future especially those that occur outside our life expectancy. Failing to do so often makes our behaviour irrational regardless of whatever handwaving we use to justify it.
It is this flaw that I refer to as weaknesses upthread. However you can substitute it for the phrase "human stupidity" if you wish.
Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational carried out by individuals acting in error because their frame of reference or time horizon is excessively limited.