[samwillis]

I don't think the /s is needed, decentralisation of "power" or "authority" has never worked. Decentralised protocols can work, such as Git, but people in general are both lazy and don't care. They will always gravitate towards the easy option, which is giving someone else control.

What does work is centralise powder and authority with democratically chosen rules and regulations. It's the easy option, and it works. Fundamentally that's the thing "crypto" misses, those democratically created rules are there to protect the masses from the few. Unwittingly (?) the creators of Bitcoin actually created the greatest tool ever for financial crime and defrauding the unwitting general public when they were actually trying to empower them.

[moonchrome]

It's not lazy - it's efficient.

Centralization is an optimization, fragility/trust/single point of failure being tradeofs.

The old joke being that if an economist designed humans we would share one kidney between 3 people instead of having a redundant one.

[stcredzero]

I don't think the /s is needed, decentralization of "power" or "authority" has never worked.

Yes it most likely has. It's just not absolute. There's a very strong argument that all of history is supporting data for all societies and governments being on a spectrum of centralized power, with the more decentralized ones being better for the common person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

[notch656a]

At what population size is democracy acceptable? Is it bad to say live in a world with decentralized democracies i.e. say the US and Sweden are separate entities?