I don't think one transaction per block would solve that problem. I believe its impossible to implement total order or anything like it, without a actually distributed timestamp mechanism.
Agreed. The analogy is that with one transaction per block, two blocks referencing the same parent represent a partial ordering equivalent to two transaction within the same block.
However, getting back to my original question above; do you agree that a partial ordering is a strictly weaker requirement than a total ordering, which would, indeed be 'enough' to solve the problem of a trustless consensus?
(
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13581964#msg13581964)