There's no performance gain from bitcoin's approach though. The distributed consensus is there for trustless operation, not performance. It's many orders of magnitude slower (and a few more orders of magnitude more power inefficient!) than just having one server handle it.
Isn't bitcoin actually eventual consensus determined by increasing unlikelihood of finding a conflicting sequence of hashes?
Yes, although if the consistency is good enough for _payments infrastructure_, it's probably good enough for just about everything.
If a particualr mechanic part is good enough for a _space ship_, it's probably good enough for just about everything.
But its price may be prohibitive.
Bitcoin is an interesting exception to the above. Issue is latency.
Latency might be OK. The true price of trustless consensus is proof of work, that is, energy.
> Latency might be okay.
Nope. Not for real-time gaming which is the topic at hand. Certainly not at scale. Certainly not at the kind of volume of events that gaming produces.