lol dude I'm taking quotes straight out of your link
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"?
I do have to say, out of all the PoS projects, I found Tendermint to be the most honest, least hand-wavy, & I highly appreciate that 
-
-
You’re still wrong, in a network partition Bitcoin miners unsafely mine blocks and a large faction will regret having spent that energy, and upon partition healing all hell breaks loose. Respect the laws of BFT which still apply for Bitcoin.
-
1/ Yes I talked about this risk in my 1st article. The benefit, like I said, is this healing process in PoW is deterministic & automatable. Your “halt chain with every fault” solution is a manual solution which has its own set of caveats.
-
2/ Tendermint security relies on the continued existence & proper functioning of a group of stake holders who (i) knows how to audit forks/restart chain every time there is a halt, (ii) can accurately distinguish good/bad actors & (iii) can always coordinate & come to consensus.
-
3/ Frequent change of coin ownership, change of staking membership, and likely low rate of staking participation can cause either of 3 conditions to fail. Ultimately, introducing manual human intervention into your protocol makes it less robust, less scalable & corruptible.
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.
