Why do decentralized systems need full node consensus for upgrades, but traditional banks can patch centrally?

I appreciate the question, but these preprints don't address blockchain governance or upgrade mechanisms at all—they cover quantum computing threats, quantum networking, and quantum cryptography. None discuss why decentralized systems require consensus for protocol changes while centralized ones don't.

To answer your actual question directly (outside the archive): decentralized systems need consensus because no single entity controls the network. A bank can patch its own servers unilaterally because it owns them; Bitcoin can't impose an upgrade on node operators who disagree, because the network only accepts blocks that follow the rules *they're* running. Any change requires either coordination (consensus) or acceptance of a chain split. This is a feature, not a bug—it prevents any one party from unilaterally rewriting the rules—but it does make upgrades slower and harder than central systems.