Vitalik Buterin: Right. Well, one thing is one domain being offence-dominant by itself isn’t a failure condition, right? Because defence-dominant domains can compensate for offence-dominant domains. And that has totally happened in the past, many times. If you even just compare now to 1,000 years ago: cannons are very offence-dominant and castles stopped them working. But if you compare physical warfare now to before, is it more offence-dominant on the whole? It’s not clear, right?
How does defense-dominant domains compensate for offense-dominant domains? For example, defense-dominance in cyber-warfare doesn’t seem to compensate for offense-dominance in bio-warfare, and vice versa. So what does he mean?
Physical warfare is hugely offense-dominant today, if we count nuclear weapons. Why did he say “it’s not clear”?
Overall it seems very unclear what Vitalik’s logic is in this area, and I wish Robert had pushed him to think or speak more clearly.
How does defense-dominant domains compensate for offense-dominant domains? For example, defense-dominance in cyber-warfare doesn’t seem to compensate for offense-dominance in bio-warfare, and vice versa. So what does he mean?
Physical warfare is hugely offense-dominant today, if we count nuclear weapons. Why did he say “it’s not clear”?
Overall it seems very unclear what Vitalik’s logic is in this area, and I wish Robert had pushed him to think or speak more clearly.