Earlier quoted context omitted.
CPUs are not people. CPUs voting for blocks of transactions is in no way people having political power over the system. Even at the time, systems with hundreds of thousands of CPUs were operating, so even if voting for transactions were something akin to deciding on how to organize society, which it isn't, letting IBM outvote whole states is not democracy, it's oligarchy. Again, I don't think we have even vaguely sim…
Right; he of course knew that. It's just the closest he could get to it that he could think of. I'm not saying it's a democracy; just that he thought it's the closest he could get to it while retaining the properties of decentralization, permissionless, and anonymity. How would you theoretically create a decentralized, permissionless, pseudonymous/anonymous currency that's more democratic? (I'd argue PoS is more demo…
> How would you theoretically create a decentralized, permissionless, pseudonymous/anonymous currency that's more democratic?
I would not try, because cryptocurrencies are hyper-individualist and hyper-libertarian, and very much antidemocratic. The core notion of any democracy is that a group of humans is in it together. There's a reason America's constitution starts with "We, the people", lays out ambitious collective goals, and then details how we make rules together. The point of an anonymous, permissionless, trustless currency is to sidestep all that, raising a middle finger to democratically chosen regulations. Which is why cryptocurrencies are basically not used for normal commerce, but are instead a haven for scammers, grifters, money launderers, ponzi schemers, thieves, and MMF fools who dream of living in the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
So I again suggest you are not really clear on what democracy is if you keep trying to suggest it's material to the original Bitcoin plan. At best you're applying a very thin coat of lipstick to a very large pig.