Their conception of consensus I indeed find ludicrous, consensus among large groups of people is impossible especially around contentious issues. Thinking that we need a very high degree of consensus on contentious issues seems to be at odds with most rational political theory, after all I suspect that most of our history would not have been so problematic if that was the case.
I actually think that the way Bitcoin solves part of this problem is brilliant. The ability to fork ultimately avoids the possibility of tyranny of the majority, as long as people realize that they have this choice. People can only lose their freedom of choice by being convinced to give it up. This is where part of the problem lies, not dissimilar to state democracies. However our beautiful Bitcoin is throwing in another parameter, positive incentive, aligning peoples incentives towards the greater good, unlike state democracies which often have perverted incentives to do harm.
I have also come to realize that part of what is going on here is group think, and a predominantly false narrative, which does play on peoples fears in the most fundamental ways. We are often portrayed as the people that are out to destroy the very thing they love, that they are also most likely invested in. Demonize us, even dehumanize us by calling us shills and other names. This is worrisome however my hope is that this is part of the necessary process for Bitcoin to evolve, growing pains if you will.
My hope is that ultimately the truth will rise, in this environment of the free exchange of information and ideas. It is this premise that my enlightenment philosophy relies on after all.
This is still a grand experiment with no historical precedent whatsoever so nobody really knows where this is going to end, my hope and theory is that Bitcoin will fulfill our greatest dreams, solving many of the worlds greatest problems while introducing some new ones. Overall however doing much more good then harm, profoundly so.
