> I'm sorry, but I cannot even work out what your post is about. The point boils down to this: you throw the "consensus" term left and right. The term has a co

> I'm sorry, but I cannot even work out what your post is about. The point boils down to this: you throw the "consensus" term left and right. The term has a concrete meaning in computer science, and you use it incorrectly, so stop doing that. > As for your final note: multiple "solutions" for the Byzantine generals exist and have been published for years. Many of them give better guarantees than what a post-selfish-mining PoW blockchain gives you. Note that the Byzantine generals problem has a rigorous proof that says you cannot have a consensus if loyal nodes don't outnumber the traitors by more than 2:1 (so you need 2/3 + 1 loyal nodes), and the proof is not about just the original algorithm Lamport et al. designed, it's about the consensus problem itself. Where does the blockchain's "50% + 1" stands against that if blockchain was supposed to be a consensus algorithm? > If your argument was, [...] If your argument is [...] If your argument is [...] My whole point is "don't use the 'consensus' term incorrectly" and "call the blockchain what it is, i.e. timestamping protocol".