Most people are sceptical of the information gathered over a system of distributed decision-making.
Discussion
Why do you think that? Too good to be true in their mind?
It defies common sense. Why should the decisions of many people with little knowledge be better than the decisions of a few people with much knowledge?
It's sort of ridiculous.
That's exactly what Socrates was saying criticizing democracy btw...
It's a very logically sound argument.
I agree, but I thought about why a normie dies not see a system of distributed decision making better than a centralized one. What you said, may sound contradictory for a democrat, like "let's just leave everything for the experts". What I mean that it's hard to explain the difference between bitcoin and the Foss world, that it may be " leaving everything for experts" but in a voluntary and consensus way, always debating and etc. A natural aristocracy like Erik von Leddhin would say.
Humans really do have experts that hold valuable information. It makes sense to have them publicly debate and answer questions.
But in the end, you need 6 confirmations and at least 90% of nodes green.
