> CRDTs and eventual consistency are actually easier to understand and reason about, than transactions. I suspect we’re going to have to agree to disagree on t

> CRDTs and eventual consistency are actually easier to understand and reason about, than transactions. I suspect we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Without spending too much time on this, it’s pretty easy to cite the Google F1 paper (http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/41344.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...): "The system must provide ACID transactions, and must always present applications with consistent and correct data. Designing applications to cope with concurrency anomalies in their data is very error-prone, time-consuming, and ultimately not worth the performance gains."