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

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

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.

agreed, but only if participants in the network default to untrusted. If you control all participants (even across great distance) or you can expect them to behave well because of external factors, don't use blockchain

Boom. Couldn’t agree more. We were building everywhere.computer for everything else.

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

glad you back;
working on governance framework that does that.

Granted you +100 🔥 FIRE. Balance verification needed.