Paxos automatically determined safe and secure
When people talk about security vulnerabilities, they focus on the most glaring holes. "Memory safety!!!!!" etc. Meanwhile, cyber criminals merrily go about their day hijacking massive computer systems without even using a memory safety vuln. Because the criminals don't give a crap what <i>kind</i> of holes there are - they any kind will do.<p>When people talk about distributed consensus algorithms, they're similarly missing the important point. A useful algorithm isn't the end-all be-all of the system. What's important is that the entire system be operated to a high degree of reliability in a way that meets the needs of a specific application. Paxos or not, if your implementation keeps falling over for reasons <i>other than consensus</i>, or you don't build in the tools to properly deal with the knock-on effects of consensus issues, etc, then the whole thing is going to blow up anyway.<p>No algorithm on its own will make a better system. You need all the other parts of the system to be just as awesome, or it falls apart just the same.