Quote from: mindrust on May 11, 2023, 05:11:59 AM

Satoshi wanted everybody to contribute to the network that's why he thought "1 CPU = 1 vote" is a good idea and it was...

No, he didn't. Emphasis mine.

Quote from: satoshi on July 14, 2010, 09:10:52 PM

For now, everyone just runs a full network node.

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less. It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in. The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

Quote from: satoshi on July 29, 2010, 02:00:38 AM

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

It wasn't supposed to be one-CPU-one-vote. It was just how it worked in the first days, but it'd definitely not carry on long-term.

Quote from: mindrust on May 11, 2023, 05:11:59 AM

That's how capitalism works.

That's how humans work. Political regime is irrelevant in my opinion. Whoever thinks there is no such thing as greed in communism is gravely mistaken.

Quote from: mindrust on May 11, 2023, 05:11:59 AM

One CPU-One Vote is an important concept because when you go to elect a president, no matter how much money you have, you can only vote once. It is because one person-one vote. In the current state of PoW, you can have millions of votes in your possession and get away with it.

This is a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is not democracy based. It's consensus based.