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

e.g. commutative operations do not require the ordering to be one way or the other, and indeed can have a proven end result value, of which global consensus can be held on, but the underlying system receipt of 1 + 2 + 3 can be totally indifferent to 2 + 3 + 1 given the result is still 6.

As transactions are non conflicting, it is possible to linearise them (with a common rule) and agree on a "strict ordering". So I think that releasing this does not simplify the problem.