Is "byzantine consensus" an appropriate term? I think it's typically used when there's agreement on the list of nodes participating in the network. (The nodes

Is "byzantine consensus" an appropriate term? I think it's typically used when there's agreement on the list of nodes participating in the network. (The nodes can agree to change the list of participants, Lamport wrote about it in "Reconfiguring a State Machine".)* With "blockchain" / proof of work, computing power substitutes for voting power: you pass state transitions by controlling a majority of the compute power rather than a majority of the voting power. Have you seen "byzantine consensus" used in the second context (with proof of work) also? (*) When I think of the Byzantine consensus problem, it's when: - not every node has to vote in each round (so that the system can make progress even if some nodes fail); - you can authenticate (e.g. with cryptography) that messages come from the appropriate sender (but not whether that sender is acting "honestly"); - the goal is to reach consensus, i.e., if any node concludes that some proposition (i.e. state transition) has passed, no nodes will ever agree on contradictory proposition.