Git's consensus model is not weak or non-existant it's just not like Bitcoins.
Rather, in Git's version a single person or group decides what the truth is and everyone follows that (or forks). It's human/social consensus. It can be as strong or stronger than bitcoin since any issues or conflicts are resolved to satisfaction in meatspace.
Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash are two forks of Bitcoin and nobody seems to be able to decide which is the proper one, people argue back and forth.
Meanwhile in the repositories of both chains, people happily submit changes and commit them under the watch of the lead developers who control and check what goes in, rejecting harmful or bad merge requests, etc.
There is kind of a consensus model: the fork with the most good work on it is the real one.
If you come across a forest of different forks of Ruby On Rails, you can identify the project's main master by looking for the longest sequence of commits by known project participants...
Rather, in Git's version a single person or group decides what the truth is and everyone follows that (or forks). It's human/social consensus. It can be as strong or stronger than bitcoin since any issues or conflicts are resolved to satisfaction in meatspace.
Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash are two forks of Bitcoin and nobody seems to be able to decide which is the proper one, people argue back and forth.
Meanwhile in the repositories of both chains, people happily submit changes and commit them under the watch of the lead developers who control and check what goes in, rejecting harmful or bad merge requests, etc.