I saw the discussion went on rust too, and there was a very good discussion on this topic on devos too, with a guy who was firm supporter of rust to develop os, but another person explained that in fact the whole concept of rust unsafe code make it actually virtually useless, specially if you want to see the broad picture at system level, it's impossible to have an operating system made only out of safe code, and from the moment you have 'unsafe code' it mean the whole rest of the program is vulnerable to issues in those unsafe zone, which make the real usefulness of rust rather low all together. Maybe for some purpose it can still make memory handling more easier in certain case, but if the application has to make use of any unsafe code, and ultimately there will always be unsafe code executed somewhere in the whole software stack to the cpu, so it's more fake impression of security, or maybe a better way to organize data and code to avoid certain mistake, but certainly not silver bullet.
You are pointing out the brittleness of relying on total orders, because total orders don't exist over the entire universe. The challenges of blockchain consensus is tied into this fact.
But the way
we get around this is by forming
partial orders (<--- this link contains a link to a presentation on Ethereum's Casper including Vitalik and Greg Meredith from RChain/Synereo).
However with blockchain consensus we need eventual consistency with a total order over all transactions. Blockchain consensus scaling decentralized is a very, very difficult problem to solve. Vitalik has not solved it. Casper (and
even Byteball) will only work centralized. He damn well knows that and that is why technobabble research with Greg Meredith is ongoing (they are still searching/researching).