Sure, so when Eth was supposably POW, Eth had the difficulty bomb. This made it impossible to continue the chain after a certain block height and the only way to continue the chain was to install a Vitalik released software update. 

In other words, the consensus was whatever Vitalik wanted and not made by sovereign node runners in the system. Even without the difficulty bomb, the cost the run a node on Eth was prohibitively expensive so the average user was never going to be making consensus level decisions about what gets to happen to their money anyway.

In stark contrast, Bitcoin has no back door like Eth had under POW and changes are made through multi-year discussions among people who will reflect their decision in the software that they run once there seems to be pretty good agreement about a change.

Can you explain it to me in a vacuum, as well as in a real world scenario?

PoW Vs PoS, or PoW and PoW in different settings, as you wish.

Fabs

No, because the other aspects surrounding the blockchain invalidate any value add one might assume it would have.

The consensus mechanism on its own, as in, there is nothing else. The consensus mechanism with friends such as fully sovereign node operators on the other hand matters a lot. 

nerd2ninja

bitcoin

A true blockchain has limited use beyond preserving and transmitting value

r3drun3

You state that it doesn't carry any significance (on it's own).

It does, however. You're with me on that, right?