Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because it doesn't fit into your contrarian view on consensus it doesn't mean it doesn't provide consensus. You do realize that this "my contrarian view" is what computer science calls "the consensus problem", right? And that "my contrarian view" comes from a highly regarded publication that's thirty years old? > Nakamoto consensus solves the Byzantine problem quite well. Explain to me how . Byzantine generals…
It's quite simple really. Do all miners [eventually] agree on the value of a block? Yes? That's a consensus. True there are other types of consensus that are perhaps 'fairer' but that's not the issue here. So yes, it is a consensus protocol. It's called Nakamoto consensus, and it's perfectly fine for its purpose.
It's amazing how many things you got wrong in such a short statement. First, a program can't say when this "eventually" is. Then the "agree" part is wrong, too, because it can change just like that (because of forks), which even changes the history, not just a single transaction or group of them. And then there's also "all miners" part, which even read as customary universal quantifier ("all" meaning "most of them") falls apart if you remember that this needs to be assessed by a program with limited knowledge.
It's not a consensus in any computer related meaning that one could think of.