“When there is a fork, an external process can determine the blame by requiring each validator to justify all of its round votes.” Couple of problems with this:
Essentially, Tendermint’s preference for "safety over liveness" eliminates (b) but the risk of (a) is now multiplied several folds. My larger point remains: not as robust as PoW.
-
-
You’re closer to truth but you need to take off your pow colored glasses first.
-
Bitcoin currently chooses liveness, which is the worse choice of the two. After a network partition heals you’ll likely end up with two forks and two groups that disagree about which chain should be called Bitcoin, or, it will shed a large fraction of people who finally “get it”
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

How about provide an actual argument or point out how I misunderstood Tendermint? do you deny that your "external process" requires pausing the chain for an undetermined amount of time, and assumes that 1/3+ must be "bad"?