  In its classical form, a consistent replicated service requires all replicas
to witness the same evolution of the service state. Assuming a message-passing
environment with a majority of correct processes, the necessary and sufficient
information about failures for implementing a general state machine replication
scheme ensuring consistency is captured by the {\Omega} failure detector. This
paper shows that in such a message-passing environment, {\Omega} is also the
weakest failure detector to implement an eventually consistent replicated
service, where replicas are expected to agree on the evolution of the service
state only after some (a priori unknown) time. In fact, we show that {\Omega}
is the weakest to implement eventual consistency in any message-passing
environment, i.e., under any assumption on when and where failures might occur.
Ensuring (strong) consistency in any environment requires, in addition to
{\Omega}, the quorum failure detector {\Sigma}. Our paper thus captures, for
the first time, an exact computational difference be- tween building a
replicated state machine that ensures consistency and one that only ensures
eventual consistency.
