> Bank notes were not backed my commodities. It's called an unsecured note. They were backed by nothing more than the drawees standing.

Depends what kind of note we're talking about. The original "bank notes" were bearer bonds made out for a certain amount of metal currency and issued by the bank. Although people also "gave their note" as in writing an IOU.

> And now you're bringing in all sorts of requirements that don't bear upon your theory of decentralization. Trust is not a factor.

A central trusted authority is.

> Again explain how trust / reliability is a necessary element of dectralization. I'm not seeing it. It just seems like a another element you're adding and to the wrong box.

I've already answered this twice. Reliability has nothing to do with centralisation. Hence why I rejected your example of unreliability as proof of decentralisation.

I'm not answering this a fourth time, you can take it or leave it.

> Besides, you trust the software to perform the "trustless" transaction.

That doesn't require trust. I can audit the software and/or write my own. I can't create my own bank branch or demand access to their computer systems.