There are genuine positive applications for remote attestation. E.g., if you maintain a set of servers, you can verify that it runs the software it should be running (the software is not compromised). Or if you are running something similar to Apple's Private Compute Cloud to run models, users can verify that it is running the privacy-preserving image that it is claiming to be running.

There are also bad forms of remote attestation (like Google's variant that helps them let banks block you if you are running an alt-os). Those suck and should be rejected.

Edit: bri3d described what I mean better here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46785123

> Remote attestation is literally a form of DRM

Let's say I accept this statement.

What makes you think trusted boot == remote attestation?