"When you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you."
Still waiting for the details of your solution as I've found it to be sorely lacking.
Furthermore, I don't believe the eMunie trust consensus is any more complicated than POW or POS, it is in fact quite simple, and simple enough to describe in 3 short sentences.
But you'll always have an attack vector whether is be 25% or 51% of the nodes.
Mine has no such vulnerability and is perfectly Byzantine fault tolerant.
And it is much simpler. And it is based on proof-of-work, but removes all the things people complain about w.r.t. to proof-of-work, including the excess security that is wasted on electricity. I do not feel good about causing someone to waste 2 - 3 years of effort. Hey if you are a good Java programmer and want to work for coins, again I suggest maybe you should be talking to me. I not only have the holy grail of consensus designs, but I also obliterate all the other anonymity designs as well including Blockstream, Cryptonote, and Zerocash.
Please I don't wish any harm on you or your community. You've been very reasonable. I hope you see I am being reasonable. As for
unreasonable dickheads, they have coming what they deserve.
There is always an attack vector, you can not guard against Byzantine faults if more than (n-1)/3 of them are occurring, not matter what algorithm you chose, this is proven. Yours also then has attack vectors too, and it is simply that (n-1)/3 nodes lie, so you need to have some Sybil protection to make achieving (n-1)/3 node difficult (you can never prevent them completely). If your solution is 100% guarded against these scenarios, then well, I will take my hat off to you and propose you for every CS prize going.
Bitcoin is not Byzantine tolerant IMO because the historical state of the ledger can be changed by someone with a majority of hash-power. In a true Byzantine tolerant protocol, the ledger (or log) is append only, and this is not the case for Bitcoin.