Does decentralized consensus really need a chain? What happens if emergence replaces history?

[YanAnghelp]

@AhmadNajari

This is a sharp and important point that cuts to the core of the problem. You’re right: strict global ordering is a solution to double-spending, but not the only possible one. The ‘reject both’ approach essentially trades a strong consistency guarantee for eventual consistency with a strong safety rule.

I think that in parallel networks, such conflicts cannot be resolved and should not be. If it is to be resolved, additional global arbitration must be introduced

If we enforce single-threading, that is, each block must import the previous block, then this problem can be easily solved. It is only necessary to ensure that a single block is legally valid internally and historically

@AhmadNajari

So the deeper question for a history-less, emergent consensus model becomes: what replaces the chain as that unforgeable, common reference point for conflict resolution? Can local trust models and observed behavior converge on a stable rule that is both safe and resistant to such targeted attacks? This seems like a critical hurdle.

Regarding this issue, you can refer to this PoC: TrustMesh: Consensus as Emergence, Security from Behavior - Meta-innovation - Ethereum Research, which reveals that such a structure is entirely possible. Perhaps we can ensure that each block does not need to reference other blocks, making each block self-evidencing.