Ah, yes, that is an excellent example of that sort of misalignment. However, I think its also an excellent example of what's great about cryptocurrencies. Because in that situation, Bitcoin as an ecosystem has an out: A hardfork. If the miners and the users disagree, a new group of miners can form around a separate code-base that addresses this problem in a different way. Everyone in the ecosystem is incentivized for this not to happen, because it dilutes value. However, if the issue becomes salient enough to overcome that dilution, a fork will occur, and that has happened a few times now.
To me, this is a pretty awesome way of discovering the best way to do things. If two parties can't come to agreement, they simply go their separate ways, and organically the system comes to decide which chain is more valuable. I find this to be one of the most beautiful, elegant parts of the crypto ecosystem.
Consider the contrast to a government currency. If you disagree with how the Chinese Communist Party manages the Renminbi, or how the Federal Reserve manages the US dollar, you don't meaningfully have the option to create your own alternative, and let it be judged by the world. This is the truest sense in which crypto is decentralized.
Now, this model is not without its flaws. National currencies have done very well for a long time being managed in this way. The ability to homogenize everyone on a single national currency has real benefits. It's easy to build up lots of infrastructure around it because it's dependable, for instance. Thinking through issues like this are really what's at the root of a well thought out criticism of crypto-currencies, though, IMO.