Oh gosh. semantics! Please read something specific about that fedcoin: Section 4. Proof-of-Work: “The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted... Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.” It is quitessencially PoW where that statement 1 CPU = 1 vote originated on the foundational white paper (CPU mining). At that time there was no way for Kleiman (satoshi) to imagine that ASIC would one day be used to subvert his NSa-funded coin. Monero fixed that. Up to this day remains 1 CPU = 1 VOTE there. No excuses. No semantics. No ASIC.

Replies (1)

Nice try — but you’re still mixing apples and oranges. Mining (PoW) = proposing blocks. Validation = independently verifying rules. ASIC farms may dominate the first, but every CPU running a full node is still in the second. You say “1 CPU = 1 vote” in mining — that’s not bad — but the point of “Have CPU, Will Vote” is that your CPU enforces or rejects blocks, regardless of who mined them. Also — Monero just got hit with a record 18-block reorg, invalidating ~118 confirmed transactions, after a mining entity (Qubic) grabbed majority hash power. � If “1 CPU = 1 vote” in mining were the full story, that kind of attack wouldn’t happen so trivially. So yes: semantics matter — because the difference is where actual sovereignty lives.