Again after consulting with @anonymint in chat...
Take a chill pill, for once.
Ditto.
When you hurl ad hominems it is "mild" in your opinion, but when @anonymint responds in kind to teach you how disruptive it is for you to hurl them in the first place, he in your opinion is somehow overreacting.
You have very strange sense of fairness.
I bet you've observed in your life that you do not get along very well with others (other than perhaps your grandma and her perfect omniscient objectivity of ambiguous asynchronous partial orders).
I disagree that attacking the network is the most efficient way to profit. It is unlikely that you can prove your argument one way or another, and vast generalizations are not convincing.
You're moving the goalposts because you were defeated on the prior points. Now you're constructing strawmen.
Nobody cares what you think, they care what you
formally prove as for the safety and security of your proposed Decrits consensus system.
When you have formal proofs in your whitepaper, then we can talk. Until then, you're becoming a waste of time again same as 2013.
Bitcoin BFT requires the safety of the consensus result, regardless of adversary. The Decrits design (and presumably others that you've reviewed) eschews this requirement in favor of a non-automatic consensus in the face of adversaries. Since lack of safety can be proven (by a lack of validators' signatures), a node can't be convinced by an adversary that the network is correct and can therefore refrain from making decisions. With BFT, the network can never be proven safe or unsafe.
You're writing a load of incomprehensible handwaving nonsense to confuse n00bs.
There's
2f + 1 and
3f + 1 BFT. Learn the attributes that apply to each.
Your designs must fit into one of those mathematical models. Period.
BFT assumes network synchrony.
Not necessarily.
Refer to
Part 2 of @anonymint's recent blog. Byteball and Hashgraph are 100% asynchronous.
You simply do not have a very coherent conceptualization of BFT.
This is the last reply you will receive to your nonsense. You go ahead building strawmen and such in your replies.If ever you have a formalisation of your design, then we can do peer review of it.
Update:@Ix and @anonymint shared some amicable discussion in private messaging.