That's hardly an analysis. This is core of your consensus protocol, you can't gloss over it with a throwaway paragraph.
With a horizontal consensus like this (as opposed to a vertical chain of consensus, like a PoW chain) it is possible for the consensus to stall completely due to inability to reach an agreement. You've allowed a maximum of two rounds of consensus to occur, so what happens when both of these fail to reach an agreement? Why can't that happen?
Hi, Much respect and I like many of your posts here!
I think what he is calling "lockers" is what's needed and it's a cluster or coordinator nodes acting as a single unit
without any of them gaining total control.
without this the network clutter becomes far to high on scaleable systems so you have to have a compromise
and sending one transaction to 20,000 nodes so they can argue about it is pure madness anyway and should be
limited down to something like a hundred nodes based on the public address of the wallet so in effect the address
itself becomes like an IP-Range within the network if you follow what I am saying.
I award you one credit for your critical thinking