It has been proven impossible to reach full consensus at scale in a fully decentralized, asynchronous system (the FLP theorem).
So, in computer science terms, consensus algorithms are about approximating distributed consensus in the face of benign and malicious threats or communication failures, which devolves to "quorum / majority" pretty quickly in a crisis.
After the crisis, some kind of compensation, reconciliation or excommunication has to happen with the portion that disagreed.
So that means if you are against majority thought you are shit out of luck. Just think of any time when majority consensus hasn't been the optimal solution.
If you believe that there is a better way to find a consensus in a distributed system than majority you are free to implement a system based on it. I consider it as quite plausible that such a system exists, but cannot even imagine how it might look like.
There is a better way but it unfortunately requires the system to have an understanding of what the decision is about - in other words, no longer decoupling the mechanics of the decision from the meaning of the decision.
A distributed system can easily make a majority decision that is unwise, like if the votes are based off of bad information. But if the different options of the decision could be formalized and checked/proven as part of the decision making process, based off of axioms and values that participants all agree on, then perhaps the most rational decision could be selected even if it's not what the majority was initially in favor of.
reply