To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
So by trustless I mean my node doesn't need to trust what your node is sending to me. I can validate it on own, meaning it is a trustless system.
No bitcoin based on a protocol that is built and working, no theory behind it. If your talking about crypto-functions do some research. The addresses are nothing more than private public key, the bread and butter of internet commerce since about 1996 probably earlier.
This is a money system, that a lot of people are passionate about.
A lot of people are passionate about a lot of things. Nothing gained by that point.
No theory behind it? I'm sure its more serious promoters would wince at such a naive statement. There is theory of some sort behind all cultural innovations and certainly no money system stands a chance without taking money theory seriously.
The trust issues I raise have nothing to do with addresses and private public keys (technological issues) and everything to do with the conception and creation of the money itself, not whether or not nodes do or don't need independent verification.