My attempt to define "strict global consensus":

- A strictly ordered and objective list of transactions,
- that everyone on the network agrees to exactly,
- in near real time

If some element of an application necessarily requires these, use blockchains; for everything else there are much better solutions

why does strict global consensus require strict ordering of all transactions as one? it is easily possible to have distinct sets of transactions that do not conflict, splintered as sets that do have conflicts and need to attain strict ordering.

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

In which case it does not require strict global consensus and should not use public blockchains (there's a wide design scope for non-blockchain solutions)

Something like a financial system does require strict global consensus

I don’t get why agreeing on the order of **conflicting** txs and agreeing on the order of **all** txs would be fundamentally different problems. It seems to me that any solution to one is also a solution to the other.