One more time I will help you, although the wisest action from a competitive standpoint would have been for me to not respond and let you continue with your perspective.
Let's start from this point.
I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not.
Obviously yes, if we agree that consistency of disallowing double-spends into the ledger and not reversing the time ordering of transactions is our desired consistency.
That is quite an absurd proposition you have made to say that eliminating the prevention of double-spends and allowing reversal of time ordering of transactions amongst differing graphs seen globally as being some useful form of consistency. There are no decisions that can be made from such mayhem. No one can decide who owns what. That is consistency
Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.
Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.
Let's start from this point.
I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not.
Obviously yes, if we agree that consistency of disallowing double-spends into the ledger and not reversing the time ordering of transactions is our desired consistency.
Note that CAP theorem is used on a more abstract level than the level of account balances. I can imagine a perfectly consistent distributed system (by sacrificing A and P) which sees all double-spends that have ever happened. If we use your definition of "consistency" then we'll get an absurd result. I suggest to stay away of home-made definitions because they will lead to profanation of Brewer's theorem and won't let us to do a proper analysis.
That is quite an absurd proposition you have made to say that eliminating the prevention of double-spends and allowing reversal of time ordering of transactions amongst differing graphs seen globally as being some useful form of consistency. There are no decisions that can be made from such mayhem. No one can decide who owns what. That is consistency
Once you agree with me on the above we'll move to the next point.
Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.