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.

Ethereum

Crypto and tech. Occasional shitposter. Content is not financial advice. DYOR.

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

/quilibrium

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.

Question: why "objective"? Is not it already contained in "everyone on the network agrees to exactly"?

Oracle Database Developer and Solana Developer

For CS related stuff, YYYY-MM-DD has the good property of sorting correctly in alphabetical order

Head of research at a16z crypto.
Professor, Columbia University.

ok I didn't interpreted "neutral" as this, interesting!

how is captured the consensus aspect? a single computer isn’t also a neutral infrastructure for computation?

Mathis

@mgd