Hi. I&#x27;m the author of GoshawkDB. Thanks for your questions.<p>&gt; It isn&#x27;t true. There&#x27;re plenty of storages with same strong consistency model (tolerates F failures of 2F+1 nodes), among them are Cassandra with lightweight transactions, Riak with consistent buckets, CockroachDB and ZooKeeper.<p>The point I was trying to make is the decoupling between cluster size and F. ZK, for example, requires that the cluster size is exactly 2F+1, not is minimum 2F+1. That means that as the cluster size increases, performance will decrease as more nodes have to be contacted.<p>&gt; Can you please describe the algorithm that you use for implementing distributed transactions?<p>Yes. In detail, there will be a blog post forthcoming. However the two main points is that 2PC is replaced by Gray and Lamport&#x27;s paper &quot;Consensus on transaction Commit&quot;, and dependencies between transactions are modelled through vector clocks. As I&#x27;m visiting lots of family over xmas, I&#x27;m afraid I don&#x27;t have the 12+ hours necessary to document the entire algorithm just at the moment. However, I will certainly get to this asap.<p>&gt; Do you use the same approach?<p>I don&#x27;t know. I don&#x27;t use the term round-trip because that doesn&#x27;t make it clear if we&#x27;re talking individual messages or message-hops, and these sorts of conversation and discussion can often go wrong if we use different terminology. The 3 network-delays that I mention comes directly from the Gray and Lamport paper I mention above.