isn't he missing, or rather pissing all over, one of the other more important points - 1 cpu = 1 vote.
You are wrong.
You should go back and look again at the bitcoin.pdf:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfNowhere you will find 1 CPU = 1 VOTE.
You will find instead 7 times: "CPU power"
Of the linked whitepaper, section 4 paragraph 3 begins:
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 by anyone able to allocate many IPs. 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. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.
On introducing the concept, Satoshi did offer the simplified explanation of proof-of-work: "essentially one-CPU-one-vote". He was pleased to observe that this method, unlike others he could conceive, required no special authority.
With this, Satoshi was able to replace thoughts like "If a privileged timeserver is honest" or "If the authority responsible for assigning IP addresses is honest" with "If a majority of the global hashrate is honest".
Both branches will continue to use proof-of-work in the way Satoshi described. There is no deviation on the part of the Bitcoin Cash branch.
Yes, I'm really glad you quoted this. I particularly like how Satoshi repeatedly referenced "honest"
Only, a big part of BCC is the (at-best) unethical, continued use of an illegally-implemented, patented technology referred to as ASICboost. And why do people continue to refer to it as "ASICboost" (which is the patent-holder's name for it), unless it means that there is some type of acknowledgment that it is indeed "ASICboost" ?
Why are you even surprised? Centralized services can put up any number as your balance.
