The recent discussion about whether Adam Back is Satoshi Nakamoto has evolved beyond simply trying to identify the creator of Bitcoin. It now focuses on a bigger question: does Bitcoin operate like a democracy? This change was sparked by a discussion about a phrase in the original 2008 Bitcoin paper – “one-CPU-one-vote” – with some arguing it suggests the system was designed to be governed by majority rule.
“One-CPU-One-Vote” controversy
Back strongly disagrees with the idea that Bitcoin functions as a political voting system. He views it instead as a technical network that reaches agreement through its underlying technology. Specifically, he explains that the ‘proof of work’ process isn’t about casting votes, but about ensuring everyone agrees on the correct order of transactions, even when faced with potential disruptions or conflicts.
The amount of computing power (hashpower) decides which version of the blockchain continues, but whether a blockchain is legitimate depends on network participants following the established rules. Miners can’t change these rules on their own, because any blocks that break them will be ignored, no matter how much computing power is behind them.
Morning Crypto Report: XRP Not Ready for $1.50: Bollinger Bands, Cardano Foundation Votes ‘Yes’ on 500,000 ADA Withdrawal, Kiyosaki Details ‘Rich Dad’ Bitcoin Strategy
Ripple CEO Sees Major Legal Victory Likely This Spring
This difference becomes clear when looking at Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, which suggests limiting how much non-financial data—like Ordinals inscriptions—can be included in “OP_RETURN” transactions.
Regardless of what any research suggests, Bitcoin isn’t decided by a democratic process when it comes to changes to its core rules, known as the Nakamoto consensus. The system, which relies on ‘proof of work,’ functions like a ‘one hash, one vote’ system. This is essentially a way to reach agreement in a situation where participants are anonymous, and it’s used to resolve disagreements – similar to how the internet’s routing system (BGP) works.
— Adam Back (@adam3us) February 17, 2026
This plan would use a User-Activated Soft Fork, allowing nodes to start following new rules without needing miners to officially agree. This will test the idea that in Bitcoin, it’s the nodes that verify transactions – not just those with the most computing power – who ultimately enforce the rules.
Despite once favoring ways to keep the Bitcoin blockchain from becoming too large, Back has spoken out against BIP-110. He believes that making significant changes without widespread agreement could split the network and harm Bitcoin’s reliability as a currency. Currently, there isn’t much public support for the proposal among Bitcoin nodes.
Currently, Bitcoin doesn’t function like a traditional democracy where the majority always gets its way. It’s more like a system governed by pre-set rules, and agreement happens through a process of verification and shared economic incentives, rather than through voting.
Read More
- Gold Rate Forecast
- Brent Oil Forecast
- PUMP Pumped or Plundered? Traders Beware the Bull! 🤦♂️
- Tina Fey’s Take: Crypto Prices Dive Before Powell’s Big Speech 📈💰
- Silver Rate Forecast
- EUR VND PREDICTION
- Pump.fun’s $615m Shakedown: Crypto’s New Gold Rush!
- Crypto Circus Escalates: The Wild Ride After Ethereum’s $4.5K Breakout 🎢🚀
- Crypto Chaos Calms Down, Congress Prepares for “Crypto Week” – Get Ready for Some Serious Coin Talk! 💸📈
- ALGO PREDICTION. ALGO cryptocurrency
2026-02-17 20:56