[mandmandam]

> I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the opposite in some cases.

You seem to be making some large logical leaps, and jumping to invalid conclusions.

Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized control". If you can't, that's a failure of imagination, not of decentralization.

[consumer451]

> Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized control".

Since apparently my own imagination is too limited, could you please give me some examples of how this would be accomplished?

[mandmandam]

Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic. Have you read much in the field, to be so certain that centralization is the only way forward?

There are options you haven't considered, whether you can imagine them or not.

[consumer451]

> Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic.

Yeah, and how's that working out exactly? Is there any decentralized governance project which also has anything to do with law irl? I know what a DAO is, and it sounds pretty neat, in theory. There are all kinds of theoretical pie in the sky ideas which sound great and have yet to impact anything in reality.

Before we give the keys to nukes and bioweapons over to a "decentralized authority," maybe we should see some examples of it working outside of the coin-go-up world? Heck, how about some examples of it working even in the coin-go-up world?

Even pro-decentralized crypto folks see the downsides of DAOs, such as slower decision making.