On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Jorge Timón <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > reason you don't think guaranteed eventual consistency has any value
Obligatory pedantic correction: In Bitcoin we don't actually achieve "eventual consistency" of the kind which is usually described in the literature. In Bitcoin the probability of reorg to a particular point diminishes over time but never is guaranteed to be _zero_ (at least within the framework of bitcoin itself), and at the same time we have stronger ordering properties than is normally implied by eventual consistency (so, e.g. an update may never happen if its conflicted first). This is completely irrelevant to your point-- soft forks obey the normal consistency process for bitcoin where a hard fork (especially a mutual one) does not... but I'm sure there is an academic out there that cringes when we use the words "eventual consistency" to describe Bitcoin, and I feel like I'd be remiss to not offer this minor correction. :) _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
