Also a distributed database engineer, and while I disagree with CockroachDB's CAP Theorem tradeoff decisions, they are definitely well reasoned and principled.

Also a distributed database engineer, and while I disagree with CockroachDB's CAP Theorem tradeoff decisions, they are definitely well reasoned and principled. RethinkDB was Master-Slave (strongly consistent) with an amazing developer community and actually survived Aphyr's tests better than most systems. CockroachDB is also in the Master-Slave (strongly consistent) camp, but more enterprise focused, and therefore will probably not fail, however their Aphyr report worked... but was unfortunately very slow. But hey, being strongly consistent is hard and correctness is a necessary tradeoff from performance. Other systems, like Cassandra, us (https://github.com/amark/gun https://github.com/amark/gun), Couch/Pouch, etc. are all in the Master-Master camp, and thus AP not CP. Our argument is that while P holds, realtime sync with Strong Eventual Consistency is good enough yet has all the performance benefits, for everything except for banking. Sure, use Rethink/Cockroach for banking (heck, better yet, Postgres!), but for fun-and-games you can do banking on top of AP systems if you use a CRDT or blockchain (although that kills performance, CRDTs don't) on top. So yeah, I agree with you about CAP Theorem and stuff, disagree with Cockroach's particular choice - but they do have some pretty great detailed explainers/documentation on their view, and therefore should be treated seriously and not written off.