To say that Bitcoin is strongly consistent is to say that the memory pool and the last X blocks aren't part of Bitcoin. If you want to avoid making that claim, you can at best argue that Bitcoin has both a strongly consistent component AND an eventually consistent component.
The entire point of the definition of eventually consistency is that your computer system is running continously and DO NOT have a final state, and therefore you must be able to describe the behavior when your system either may give responses to queries across time that are either perfectly consistent *or not* perfectly consistent. And Bitcoin by default *does not* ignore the contents of the last X blocks. A Bitcoin node being queried about the current blockchain state WILL give inconsistent answers when there's block rearrangements = no strong consistency. Not to mention that your definition ignores the nonzero probability of a block rearrangement extending beyond your constant omega. Bitcoin provides a probabilistic, accumulative probability. Not a perfect one. Den 2 mar 2016 04:04 skrev "Emin Gün Sirer" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > > There seems to be a perception out there that Bitcoin is eventually > consistent. I wrote this post to describe why this perception is completely > false. > > Bitcoin Guarantees Strong, not Eventual, Consistency > > http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/03/01/bitcoin-guarantees-strong-not-eventual-consistency/ > > I hope we can lay this bad meme to rest. Bitcoin provides a strong > guarantee. > - egs > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
