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.
Replies (2)
It is literally written otherwise in that foundational paper. That was never the intention (and I know because I was there), those are just modern excuses for something that is obviously broken.
Also, there was no majority hash power grabbed by someone albeit that entity claimed otherwise. AFAIK, it was proven false. Monero being attacked is a frequent occurence, better ask yourself why it is so persecuted by governments while that boomer coin is supported by them.
Just ask yourself that.
The paper is one thing, the implementation is another. Bitcoin’s implementation separated mining (proposing blocks) from validation (enforcing rules). That’s why ‘Have CPU, Will Vote’ is about process isolation and consensus enforcement — not nostalgia for CPU mining.
Conspiracy theories and emotional appeals don’t change the fact: ASICs can mine, but they cannot make me validate. That’s the firewall. That’s decentralization.
