consistency* 

 no, because you are wrong

consistency is a product of a protocol that gives some degree of priority to checking that all replicas are the same

or in the case of eventual consistency, where the propagation strategy inevitably reaches all participants

bitcoin has probabalistic consistency, which is a variant of eventual consistency, in that you can say with some amount of confidence that the chances of convergence failure after 6 blocks is basically nearest thing to impossible but not precisely impossible

is bitcoin centralised? i believe it's the most decentralised distributed system ever designed

nostr simply does not have a consensus, so it's not really a distributed system, the definition of a distributed system is that it acts like a von neumann machine, with limitations of time to consistency or resistance to partitioning or whatever

it was intentional that nostr not have a consensus, because that frees up the space to experiment with strategies, and we have like blastr, we have nip-65 outbox model, and there's dozens of other ways that consistency can be created and actually once you can start to say that the public part of the nostr relay network is starting to have some kind of consistency, it will be so heteregenous that no single attack will ever be able to break it

i mean, not that i particularly care to exercise this angle on it but using a pBFT based blockchain database effectively adds a form of consistency, that is the central point in our pitches to get the grants to do the work

i don't think it's the best solution but it does in fact increase the consistency of a group of relays sharing a common distributed database, i would say that it is centralising, to a strong degree, and what primal does with cache relays is even more centralising