Ok, now to your question.
But what about these issues with missing TB?
What happens when SH from 1 to K signs TB, but SH K+1 releases his claiming previous K TBs did not arrive on time? And what if this (K+1)th TB contains transactions conflicting with ones in previous K blocks?
Blockchain does not have any data that would allow nodes to tell 'real' course of action and it would always resolve to some kind of voting between SHs?
My current understanding: through blockchain you can't resolve it. You need to have been online during one of the 1 to K blocks and have seen for yourself that the signatures were indeed broadcasted. Then you can be sure that (K+1)th SH is the liar.
The honest nodes will then take action to suppress the (K+1)th from the network and enforce their opinion. For example, all the communication related to the false chain is not relayed by them. So it's a kind of vote of the whole network.
Now if the attacker has a significant portion of the network as well, he can form an appreciable fork. There it becomes harder, and the users will have to interfere. Those who missed the fork buildup (and therefore don't know the truth) will have to decide which chain they're going to be on. Etlase2 proposed some trust-based solutions. All the real people who are not the attacker will either know the good chain, or be undecided. So you could run a vote among the people whom you believe to be real.
I hope Etlase2 can comment as well.