You all know how much I disliked CTOR. But I'm more on the side of honesty. That post was a lot of fancy words and conceptual analogies to frankly justify zilch. I'm getting antonopoulos vibes here...
The problem is that it and almost all the other misunderstandings in this exact space is that it ignores the fact that nodes don't organize transactions in the block based on their perceived "intra-block time ordering". They are ordered based on a picking algorithm in the block construction code. In general (I'm not looking at the code), this picking algorithm grabs higher fee stuff first and then within a fee "tranch" would grab things based on whatever hashing algorithm is used in the underlying implementations mempool data structure (its a boost multimap in satoshi codebases). And there's other stuff that makes the order different per node -- like how much space you've set aside for free tx. But ignoring that, if you just chose that hash algorithm to be the SHA256 transaction hash, you'd almost get CTOR popping out (you'd get a primary sort of DTOR and a secondary of CTOR).
Therefore calling it an intra-block **time** ordering based on the perception of time by the cat inside schrodinger's box is a fantasy.
BUT.... there is an interesting thing here... if there turns out to be any use whatsoever for this "untrusted but generally accurate" intra-block time based ordering it wouldn't be too hard for non-CTOR Satoshi clients to apply this time sort to their block creation algorithms because tx arrival time is already held in the mempool to tx can be aged out after a few days.
