> The only thing that could happen is that the network forks and different parts of the network reach majority on different states. That's the main thing that

> The only thing that could happen is that the network forks and different parts of the network reach majority on different states. That's the main thing that Bitcoin solved, how to resolve this exact situation. You can't just ignore this problem and claim to have a similarly resilient design. > This problem is solved by raising the majority needed to 80% rather than >50% and on top of that is is further reduced by intentionally overlapping the nodes who are defined by each node. The first part just makes it slightly more expensive to do a sybil attack. The second part relies on someone deciding what the overlapping nodes are, now you have to trust them. > If you have 10 nodes all listen to the other 9 and require that form the other 9 80% agree then there is no way the network can ever fork. And now you have a network that can't grow beyond 10 nodes, and if more than 10 show up you need to somehow choose the ones that are honest. Or someone needs to decide which nodes get to be the "special 10". > Now these 10 nodes are publicly known And chosen by whom? Can you trust the entity that chooses them? Can you trust them not to be hacked and share malicious nodes instead?